R
Rau
Guest
The primary purpose of a just punishment is to “redress the disorder” caused by the offense; what does this mean then?
Scholars raise concerns over Pope Francis remarks on how doctrine develops
- Status
B
BlackFriar
Guest
The “death penalty” is not “justice”, or “sin”.
This is not a proper use of english or moral theology from what I can see.
Capital Punishment (CP) simply describes a form of State killing.
It is therefore impossible to determine whether it is good or bad without more detail being supplied.
Its like trying to say sex is good.
Yes it is in its nature (just as killing is bad in its own nature).
But really its immorality or not depends on the additional detail yet to be supplied.
The most we can say is that doing such is not always immoral.
However recent Popes are increasingly saying that given the detail of modern forms of imprisionment now newly possible it is always immoral under these conditions.
I too would agree that modern CP is therefore intrinsically evil.
This is not a proper use of english or moral theology from what I can see.
Capital Punishment (CP) simply describes a form of State killing.
It is therefore impossible to determine whether it is good or bad without more detail being supplied.
Its like trying to say sex is good.
Yes it is in its nature (just as killing is bad in its own nature).
But really its immorality or not depends on the additional detail yet to be supplied.
The most we can say is that doing such is not always immoral.
However recent Popes are increasingly saying that given the detail of modern forms of imprisionment now newly possible it is always immoral under these conditions.
I too would agree that modern CP is therefore intrinsically evil.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
If there are exceptions to the negatively expressed commandments, then the expression is lacking, for they have no exceptions. The 5th is about slaying the innocent.
Last edited:
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Are you implying that our saying capital punishment is justifiable does not encourage the public as a whole to value sinful vengeance? Do you not agree that the dominant values in Christianity are forgiveness and love, and not this type of contrived justice? The key is to know that we are all in need of salvation and that we will be judged largely based on our love and willingness to forgive?
B
BlackFriar
Guest
All very abstract sorry.
Just tautological word games…especially when you leave out the words “properly understood” and when one realises killing has both a material and a formal dimension.
Your abstract exceptionless rule, properly understood, applies to the formal dimension.
Yes I personally believe it is always immoral for a person to directly kill another.
BTW the 5th C is not correctly translated as slaying of the innocent.
The Magisterium nows insists that Thou shall not kill is the better translation, in line with its increasingly tough stand on State killings.
It has been so since at least the time of JPII
Just tautological word games…especially when you leave out the words “properly understood” and when one realises killing has both a material and a formal dimension.
Your abstract exceptionless rule, properly understood, applies to the formal dimension.
Yes I personally believe it is always immoral for a person to directly kill another.
BTW the 5th C is not correctly translated as slaying of the innocent.
The Magisterium nows insists that Thou shall not kill is the better translation, in line with its increasingly tough stand on State killings.
It has been so since at least the time of JPII
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
No, I’m not implying. I’m asking you a question. Are you able to answer it?
R
Rau
Guest
There is nothing abstract nor anything to be sorry about.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Your translation of the 5th.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Obviously, it means that setting the example of forgiveness and love by abolishing the death penalty will reduce people’s, including criminals, perception that vengeance is justifiable. What’s more important as a Christian: Love and forgiveness or a false sense of justice?
R
Rau
Guest
So that is what “redressing the disorder caused by the offence means”? Are you obfuscating Robert?
R
Rau
Guest
“The commandment regarding the inviolability of human life reverberates at the heart of the “ten words” in the covenant of Sinai (cf. Ex 34:28). In the first place that commandment prohibits murder: “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13); “do not slay the innocent and righteous” (Ex 23:7). But, as is brought out in Israel’s later legislation, it also prohibits all personal injury inflicted on another (cf. Ex 21:12-27).” EV.40
“If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment “You shall not kill” has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person.” EV.57
“The negative precepts of the natural law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbid a given action semper et pro semper, without exception, because the choice of this kind of behaviour is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the acting person, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with his neighbour.” VS.52
“But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever.” VS.67
Meaning is more than “translation”.
Last edited:
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
I believe you’re living under the OT laws, which the new covenant does not recognize. Let us stick to the new covenant as instituted by Christ. How can any Christian refute the fact that this new covenant is centered on love and forgiveness?
You also completely ignored my question to you about which values capital punishment are based, and how these values go above and beyond the dominant values of Christianity?
R
Rau
Guest
Really? This needs to be conveyed to the authors of the Catechism, for they wrote:
“Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” ccc2266
So why is it that you reference the OT laws?
I ignored it because it was entirely diversionary given I had posed a simple question, to which you responded with several of your own, and answering yours would shed no light on mine
No, I didn’t address that point at all. I just asked you a question. [But there is no doubt that use of CP will have bad consequences - it is a matter of prudential judgement of each of us to decide whether they outweigh the good. Recent posts have concluded they do.]
Love of God and neighbour are the dominant values. There are many neighbours.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Do you understand the difference between a “concrete action” and the “moral precept” it allegedly instantiates? The latter is exceptionless (formal), the former (material) is not.
You seem to be more aggressive than usual today.
Bad hair day or something more - hope all is well.
You seem to be more aggressive than usual today.
Bad hair day or something more - hope all is well.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I better be careful! 
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Love and forgiveness cannot be dominant values absent a clear understanding of principles of justice, right and wrong.
If someone steals something, say a prized painting, the thief has accrued a debt. Justice demands that the painting is returned to the owner. Forgiveness and love both support returning the painting or, at least, the return of something of proportionate value. There is no sense in saying the thief stole the painting but it’s okay we all love and forgive him and he can keep the painting he stole. There is something very wrong with that view of the wrong committed. The victim whose painting was stolen should get it back. Love actually demands it and forgiveness is totally contingent upon that return.
When someone takes another person’s life from them unjustly, they are taking EVERYTHING away from the murdered victim. What possible recompense can the murderer make to return life to the dead person? Clearly none can be made. That, however, doesn’t justify us survivors in saying, “Well, that’s that. The murderer can just walk away. We forgive and love him. The deceased is dead anyway and he won’t miss his life. He isn’t even aware of having lost his life. Debt forgiven, nothing owed, let’s all go on our merry way and forget the whole sordid thing.”
Seems to me there is something very wrong with that view, even if we decide to jail the perpetrator merely to keep others safe from the murderer.
What is missing is that the murderer owes a great debt, and justice (and God) demands a repayment. That repayment cannot be dismissed as mere “seeking vengeance.” Someone has lost the most precious possession they could possibly have, their very existence. I suspect God does require repayment in full. And we have no right to devalue the victim’s life by dismissing it from all our moralizing and accounting.
A proportionate repayment would be that the murderer forfeit his life and do so without reserve IF he truly does subscribe to proper principles of justice, is taking full responsibility for his action, and is seriously trying to make things right with God. Now God may not take him up on that debt if God sees something to be gained (future good acts that the guilty party might do to offset his debt) and God may even let the murderer off with a less than full repayment, but that does not deny the fact that the proper and just repayment of the debt that a murderer should owe is forfeiture of his life. And if more than one life was taken, the debt goes beyond the possibility of repayment.
If someone steals something, say a prized painting, the thief has accrued a debt. Justice demands that the painting is returned to the owner. Forgiveness and love both support returning the painting or, at least, the return of something of proportionate value. There is no sense in saying the thief stole the painting but it’s okay we all love and forgive him and he can keep the painting he stole. There is something very wrong with that view of the wrong committed. The victim whose painting was stolen should get it back. Love actually demands it and forgiveness is totally contingent upon that return.
When someone takes another person’s life from them unjustly, they are taking EVERYTHING away from the murdered victim. What possible recompense can the murderer make to return life to the dead person? Clearly none can be made. That, however, doesn’t justify us survivors in saying, “Well, that’s that. The murderer can just walk away. We forgive and love him. The deceased is dead anyway and he won’t miss his life. He isn’t even aware of having lost his life. Debt forgiven, nothing owed, let’s all go on our merry way and forget the whole sordid thing.”
Seems to me there is something very wrong with that view, even if we decide to jail the perpetrator merely to keep others safe from the murderer.
What is missing is that the murderer owes a great debt, and justice (and God) demands a repayment. That repayment cannot be dismissed as mere “seeking vengeance.” Someone has lost the most precious possession they could possibly have, their very existence. I suspect God does require repayment in full. And we have no right to devalue the victim’s life by dismissing it from all our moralizing and accounting.
A proportionate repayment would be that the murderer forfeit his life and do so without reserve IF he truly does subscribe to proper principles of justice, is taking full responsibility for his action, and is seriously trying to make things right with God. Now God may not take him up on that debt if God sees something to be gained (future good acts that the guilty party might do to offset his debt) and God may even let the murderer off with a less than full repayment, but that does not deny the fact that the proper and just repayment of the debt that a murderer should owe is forfeiture of his life. And if more than one life was taken, the debt goes beyond the possibility of repayment.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Now you might argue that the victim is dead and there is nothing to be gained for the victim by capitally punishing the perpetrator, but what you forget is that the murderer does not merely accrue a debt TO the victim, but also TO God who created the person cum victim in the first place. The murderer has taken away FROM God the infinitely precious human life that he, God, created in the first place. Ergo, the murderer accrues an infinite debt to God, if human beings are of infinite value to God. It would seem to me that God is perfectly within his rights to expect to be repaid in full by the murderer who ought to forfeit his life back to God as a proportionate repayment for the debt he owes to God.
Still, you might insist God isn’t expecting repayment for the life taken by the murderer. That isn’t up to you to determine. That would be between God, the victim and the perpetrator. However, if the perpetrator makes no attempt at seeking forgiveness or making recompense to God and simply goes on killing more victims, it is difficult to see that God would permit the murderer to do THAT without stepping in to stop it by the reasonable actions of properly ordained human moral authorities, i.e., the justice system of any state. Perhaps human instincts regarding the demands of justice ending in the capital punishment of some perpetrators is a proper reading of God’s will in the matter, especially if the murderer isn’t remorseful and shows no sign of changing their proclivity to commit more murders
It isn’t just sparing more innocent victims (although that IS part of it,) and it isn’t mere vengeance; it is a legitimate case of what justice demands from the unrepentant murderer. He doesn’t deserve to live precisely because he doesn’t value the lives of others and treats them as completely disposable and valueless, and doesn’t hesitate to show his disdain for life. That, my friend, is a serious affront to the God of infinite goodness who created those precious lives and certainly doesn’t will anyone to treat them as if they are inconsequential, of no value, or worse.
Still, you might insist God isn’t expecting repayment for the life taken by the murderer. That isn’t up to you to determine. That would be between God, the victim and the perpetrator. However, if the perpetrator makes no attempt at seeking forgiveness or making recompense to God and simply goes on killing more victims, it is difficult to see that God would permit the murderer to do THAT without stepping in to stop it by the reasonable actions of properly ordained human moral authorities, i.e., the justice system of any state. Perhaps human instincts regarding the demands of justice ending in the capital punishment of some perpetrators is a proper reading of God’s will in the matter, especially if the murderer isn’t remorseful and shows no sign of changing their proclivity to commit more murders
It isn’t just sparing more innocent victims (although that IS part of it,) and it isn’t mere vengeance; it is a legitimate case of what justice demands from the unrepentant murderer. He doesn’t deserve to live precisely because he doesn’t value the lives of others and treats them as completely disposable and valueless, and doesn’t hesitate to show his disdain for life. That, my friend, is a serious affront to the God of infinite goodness who created those precious lives and certainly doesn’t will anyone to treat them as if they are inconsequential, of no value, or worse.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Yes, I agree with the CCC, but it said nothing about the death penalty. You quoted an OT law from Genisis, which I was referring to.
R
Rau
Guest
Death Penalty, linguistics aside, is a reference to Capital Punishment. Capital Punishment is a form of punishment as addressed in the CCC. The very next para of the CCC reads:
"2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,… "
So I think we are talking about the same thing.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Continued from my last post.
Now you might insist that by expecting or demanding that the murderer forfeit his life, we are no better than murderers ourselves.
But, it seems to me, taking that position implies that what justice itself requires is no better, morally speaking, than a murderer taking someone’s life.
If that is the case, then you may as well argue that anyone who takes stolen objects away from a thief and returns them to their proper owner is himself a thief for taking the objects from the thief.
That just seems a perverse view of justice.
Now you might insist that by expecting or demanding that the murderer forfeit his life, we are no better than murderers ourselves.
But, it seems to me, taking that position implies that what justice itself requires is no better, morally speaking, than a murderer taking someone’s life.
If that is the case, then you may as well argue that anyone who takes stolen objects away from a thief and returns them to their proper owner is himself a thief for taking the objects from the thief.
That just seems a perverse view of justice.
- Status