Scholars raise concerns over Pope Francis remarks on how doctrine develops

[HarryStotle]

Justice means to restore the world to balance in terms of the way it ought to be or to render to each what is their due. Moral agency and responsibility are key features of justice. Some deserve more than others based upon their effort, actions and perfection.

Without an adequate moral system to answer the “ought” question, justice becomes meaningless. That is why where moral relativity rules, the idea of treating everyone the same (a bland egalitarian view) prevails. There is no way to distinguish bad from good in such a system, so justice collapses to sameness and no distinctions can be made with reference to some deserving or being holders of goods that others may not.

We live in an egalitarian society where any reference to difference is disallowed and the idea of just desert is considered repulsive. In our society, no one deserves more or better than anyone else so not even murderers “deserve” treatment any different from anyone else. Any attempt to distinguish oneself from others is considered “prideful” and egotistical. Striving for sanctity, especially is a no-no. “What, do you think you are better than everyone else?”

I don’t think this idea that we are all the same is compatible with Christianity. At the same time, the alternative isn’t to become prideful Pharisees. That would be a false dichotomy. Everyone of us is unique and created to be that way by God, so any move to make us all the same is wrong. At the same time there are some “givens” regarding the nature of the good and the nature of what it means to be human that governs the treatment of human beings. Evil deeds are not to be tolerated precisely because they are destructive.

Justice requires that evil done by some be restored by those same individuals. We need to see and see clearly the depth of the harm we have caused. That “seeing” ought not be minimized or excused. It is only in seeing the true nature of evil by retributive and restorative justice that we can realize the gravity of good and evil. Easily excusing and forgiving evil behaviours does not help that. Holding individuals responsible, in love and for love, does. Some may never be restored, but they will be held responsible. We don’t help things by pretending everything will be alright and all injustices will just magically disappear and all wrongs will become right by mere enchantment.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I do believe you’re grossing underestimating the sacredness of all human life!

 

[Cruciferi]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
These discussions are amusing but largely pointless.

 

[BlackFriar]

Well the classic answer is retribution (it didn’t mean what it means today).
That is allegedly the primary purpose of any punishment.

Even if one accepted this was “traditional” teaching, which is moot, I do not believe it inevitably leads to the justness of CP for the worst crimes in all cases.
For example, if LI (life imprisonment) is at least as retributive, which your opponents do not deny, then clearly it is preferable to CP.
However the retrib camp will argue this is not a moral obligation but merely a wise counsel. The Pope’s and many Christians beg to differ. As human life is sacred it is certainly immoral to choose CP over reasonable LI

Clearly the Pope’s are not convinced by the retrib. over emphasis either even if the theology has not been given yet.

We do know that the commonweal has also been a very important condition of a just punishment even if allegedly secondary principle. It has nevertheless always been a necessary component of a just punishment.
If it is not well satisfied then the punishment may be unjust and a lesser or alternative must be imposed.
If it is a lesser retribution than the crime deserves, it is still satisfactory in these cases - just as the wheat and darnall story advises.
Vengeance is ultimately the Lords and completion may have to wait until the next life due to the limitations of just punishments on earth.

 

[OneSheep]

Justice means to restore the world to balance in terms of the way it ought to be or to render to each what is their due.

Why render to a person what is due him?

Note:
I did not neglect the rest of the post, I did read it. It went beyond my question. All people are of infinite value, and are to be treated with mercy. What are people due? For that answer, we can check the parable of the workers in the vineyard, or remember that “the last shall be first”. And Jesus warns us that tax collectors and sinners will enter the kingdom before the righteous ones. Jesus turns the human sense of justice upside down.

 

[BlackFriar]

HarryStotle:

Justice means to restore the world to balance in terms of the way it ought to be or to render to each what is their due.

Why render to a person what is due him?

Because that is the very definition of the virtue of justice.
We cannot escape that starting point as it is the basis for both merit and punishment…and what we today call “rights”.

But what we can say is that the judgements of men are very imperfect for delivering just justice.
Especially when it comes to dealing with the most basic of rights - life.

Some things are best left to God to complete in his own way and in His own good time as the parable of the wheat and darnel demonstrates.
For the commonweal is often damaged if we humans try to deliver due justice in all cases. And the commonweal is a greater good than a criminal always receiving due justice in this life (or right away).
It is well accepted that God tolerates, under certain conditions, the State to forfeit the life of one who unjustly takes life.

Mercy and justice are a delicate balancing act, the principles of each must be respected if charity is to operate. Justice (including medicinal punishment which even God imposes) is a valid exercise of charity if exercised correctly.

 

[OneSheep]

Because that is the very definition of the virtue of justice.

Well, this is circular, but you hint at a purpose of justice later in your post.

Well the classic answer is retribution (it didn’t mean what it means today).

That is allegedly the primary purpose of any punishment.

Hmm. “Retribution” used to mean something different than vengeance?

 

[HarryStotle]

Why render to a person what is due him?

I take it you prefer the new revised “social justice” where everyone should get equal portions of everything no matter what they do or don’t.

Equality of outcome, the new standard for justice.

Is that correct?

 

[HarryStotle]

Hmm. “Retribution” used to mean something different than vengeance?

It used to mean paying back a debt owed, as in “re-tribute.” In the case of those who unfairly refused to pay back their debt, that entailed they were forced by law to pay to compensate the one owed for the debt, harm or damage that had been done. Hence they had to pay retribution or recompense in order to re-compensate the one who suffered the damage, harm or injury. Vengeance is not integral to retribution, although if the debt had not been repaid and the law was ineffectual, vengeance might be carried out by the wronged party. It wouldn’t necessarily be wrong, if the debt repayment being sought was proportionate to what was owed.

Justice, in this sense, would mean returning to the one harmed what is rightfully owed to them.

You aren’t claiming that those who cause harm or damage need not pay for the damage or injury done are you? You do think we ought to be fair with others and pay our due, earn our keep, and the like, do you not?

In this larger sense justice simply means humans as moral agents ought to receive what is due to them – respect for their right to life and their right to use morally legitimate means to promote their own well-being, payment for labor performed, fair payment in the exchange of goods, the truth if they won’t use it for morally illicit ends, etc.

This might be useful to you.

 

[OneSheep]

It used to mean paying back a debt owed, as in “re-tribute.”

Makes sense, for sure. It would be interesting to find out how the new definition evolved! It is quite understandable that vengeance and the old defn of retribution are so intertwined as to become one.

Note: thanks for the video, but I don’t know who/what standpoint the person represents, and I don’t have 45 min to watch it. Videos are so hard to skim…

I take it you prefer the new revised “social justice” where everyone should get equal portions of everything no matter what they do or don’t.

Equality of outcome, the new standard for justice.

Is that correct?

I’m trying to get to the purpose of justice. I don’t know if I’ve ever heard of “equality of outcome”, but I have heard about “right living” or something like that. It is a condition without poverty. But even these definitions do not get to the purpose of justice. Why have right living?

What is its purpose? To make everything fair? To what end? What is of the upmost underlying importance?

Here is a hint: Read Luke 6:6-11

 

[HarryStotle]

All people are of infinite value, and are to be treated with mercy.

Those who have done wrong and repent are treated with mercy. Those who have done no wrong will be treated justly, and compensated fairly. There is no need to apply mercy to those who have done no wrong.

Human beings are of infinite value when the image of God in them is untarnished and in a pristine state, but sin and corruption reduce that value substantially. God gave the life of Jesus to repay the debt owed by human beings, thus paying the retribution we were rightfully bound to pay to repurchase that eternal and infinite value. We ought not short change the value and meaning of that purchase.

What are people due? For that answer, we can check the parable of the workers in the vineyard, or remember that “the last shall be first”. And Jesus warns us that tax collectors and sinners will enter the kingdom before the righteous ones. Jesus turns the human sense of justice upside down.

The parable of the workers applies to workers in the vineyard, I.e., those who labour for the kingdom. It does not apply to the indolent, to sinners generally or to the unjust who might think Jesus will let them off easy if they just speak kindly of him.

Tax collectors and sinners may enter the kingdom, if they repent of their wrongdoing, repay their debts and seek the kingdom. No where does Jesus say tax collectors who continue to cheat others or sinners who continue to sin gravely will enter the kingdom at all, let alone before anyone else.

Jesus didn’t say tax collectors, et al, would enter before “the righteous ones,” he said BEFORE the Pharisees and hypocrites. If he used the world “righteous” anywhere with regard to not entering the kingdom it would have been with more than a touch of sarcasm, as in those who think they are more righteous than others but really are not.

 

[BlackFriar]

Well, this is circular, but you hint at a purpose of justice later in your post.

Definitions are circular?
They are what they are and sensible discussion cannot follow if participants do not agree on the meaning of the words they use.

“Retribution” used to mean something different than vengeance?

No. Both words mean much the same but modern English uses them both differently from how Church Latin uses them. The former sees them pejoratively the Church defines them differently.
It is worthy of significant research if you are not aware of this history.
Again discussion is impossible with others if different understandings are in play.

 

[Ender]

OneSheep:

Killing a murderer does nothing to redress his disorder.

@Ender - you are sure to have a comment.

It is not the disordered soul of the person who commits the sin that punishment is meant to redress. What must be restored is the order of justice that has been violated, and that requires a punishment adequate for the severity of the crime that was committed.

 

[OneSheep]

There is no need to apply mercy to those who have done no wrong.

It is not merciful to comfort the afflicted?

Human beings are of infinite value when the image of God in them is untarnished and in a pristine state, but sin and corruption reduce that value substantially.

Your answer follows from a very understandably well-formed conscience. Of course we naturally value less a sinner. Jesus invites us to see that God rains his goodness upon everyone, regardless of their deeds. His view of every individual is completely unchanged by behaviors. God knew our behaviors long before He hit the “create” button.

Did you come up with a purpose of justice?

 

[OneSheep]

Definitions are circular?

They can be, yes. My question was “what is the purpose of justice?” and his answer was to “render to a purpose what is due him”. My next question was “why render to a person what is due him?” and you said “Because that is the very definition of the virtue of justice.”

It sounds like the purpose of justice is justice. Circular, no?

Instead, you very accurately mentioned this, which was really cool:

For the commonweal is often damaged if we humans try to deliver due justice in all cases. And the commonweal is a greater good…

Yes, commonweal! Commonweal is a measure of justice because commonweal, the good of person(s) is the underlying purpose of Justice. Justice for its own sake is so much emptiness; order for the sake of order? Emptiness. Why have order?

It all comes back to God’s love and mercy. His love and manifested mercy, these are the purposes of justice. So we say, “God’s justice is mercy”. God’s mercy is pervasive in everything about God. If a punishment enacted conflicts with commonweal, conflicts with mercy, then justice itself has lost its foundation.

And this is what I am thinking about doctrinal development; sometimes it takes centuries to recognize that something we are doing runs contrary to commonweal, and the death penalty is one of those cases. Yes, we humans have to have the humility to admit that we are that slow on the uptake, especially since our natural consciences provide gut-level reactions that naturally compel us to want the death of a murderer. It took centuries for many Christians to “let go” of the financial benefits of having slaves. It has obviously taken even longer for us to let go of wanting to destroy murderers.

 

[HarryStotle]

It is not merciful to comfort the afflicted?

That would be called compassion or empathy or charity or love, not mercy.

Did you come up with a purpose of justice?

To keep or restore the balance of goodness in the created order.

 

[OneSheep]

That would be called compassion or empathy or charity or love, not mercy.

Spiritual Works of Mercy:

Comforting the sorrowful

Be open to listening and comforting those who are dealing with grief. Even if we aren’t sure of the right words to say, our presence can make a big difference.

Lend a listening ear to those going through a tough time
Make a home cooked meal for a friend who is facing a difficult time
Write a letter or send a card to someone who is suffering
A few moments of your day may make a lifetime of difference to someone who is going through a difficult time

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...lee-of-mercy/the-spiritual-works-of-mercy.cfm

You can also check the Catholic Encyclopedia online. “Comforting the afflicted” is a spiritual work of mercy.

To keep or restore the balance of goodness in the created order.

What is the purpose of keeping or restoring the balance of goodness?

 

[BlackFriar]

Yes, commonweal! Commonweal is a measure of justice because commonweal, the good of person(s) is the underlying purpose of Justice. Justice for its own sake is so much emptiness; order for the sake of order? Emptiness.

I think it is better to first distinguish justice and punishment.
Justice ( a virtue), by definition, cannot be immoral. It is never wrong to give someone their due.
But if we damage what is due to others in pursuing what is due to an individual then prudence (another virtue) then is flouted. If an action does not honour all four virtues then it honours none and it would seem the act is unjust.

But there are different types of justice, of giving others their due.
We seem to be speaking of punishment of an individual.
Punishment is any evil that a person suffers or undergoes (whether by a court or by fate/nature).
Imposed punishment classically has a number of purposes.
Transgression of law makes imposition of a related punishment (retribution) potentially moral. It is needed to restore/reassert order in a number of ways involving society and the individual who is at odds with society.
But for it to remain acceptable (true “justice”) a number of other principles must be satisfied as well.
Obviously it is quite possible that if full retribution is demanded in a specific way,or too quickly, then further damage (injustice or “punishment”) may be suffered by society greater than that initially caused or being safe=guarded. This “commonweal” consideration seems to be a further application of the very prudence that led to the individual’s punishment in the first place.

The commonweal seems to be the over-riding consideration that makes punishment a valid form of justice and its limiting or redirecting in administration necessitated to maintain that same justice.

Its a highly prudential judgement then when it comes to the more serious forms of punishment, especially the ultimate one.

I don’t really feel confident integrating mercy into this overview.
However mercy cannot be justified by denying “justice”. It must be in accord with “justice” principles even if it is not demanded by “justice” itself. It is no mercy to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Sometimes prudence can see that the commonweal is not only safeguarded by mitigated or delayed punishment but positively advanced. While such mitigation may not be required (as the commonweal is not actually damaged by requiring full punishment) it would be an optional mercy to do so as the commonweal is positively increased by mercy.

In this sense true “mercy justice” is even more just than normal justice because it better effects the overall intent of “retrib justice” (part of punishment) in the first place - the commonweal.

 

[HarryStotle]

Spiritual Works of Mercy:

You can also check the Catholic Encyclopedia online. “Comforting the afflicted” is a spiritual work of mercy.

That would because by executing spiritual or corporal works of mercy we are assisting God in showing his mercy through the divine economy of “merciful love;” that is, his love to those who do not justly deserve or merit it.

The concept of mercy comes from the Old Testament and is grounded in the fall of man where humans through the fall have earned God’s wrath, so a work of mercy is in itself a conduit of God’s forgiveness and loving kindness towards those who do not merit it, but really merit punishment as a result of the fall.

See this explanation from one of the bible dictionaries available online.

Mercy is manifested in God’s activity on behalf of his people to free them from slavery; it is neither theory nor principle. As the passages taken up with the establishment of the covenant with Israel show, God’s mercy is a driving force in leading him to create a relationship with Israel ( Exod 34:6 ; Deut 4:31 ; 13:17 ; Hosea 2:19 ); its meaning through hesed [d,s,j] extends to that of loyalty based on merciful love, a loyalty that maintains the covenant despite Israel’s own resistance ( Psalm 25:6 ; 40:11 ; 69:17 ; Isa 63:7 ; Jer 16:5 ; 42:12 ; Hosea 2:19 ; Joel 2:13 ; Zech 7:9 ). God’s mercy is mediated through the covenant, by which he becomes the God of a people promising protection, provision, guidance, and his constant presence ( Psalm 23:6 ). Because God is the initiator, the mercy he gives is gracious, unmerited, undeserved ( Gen 19:16 ; Exod 33:19 ; Jer 42:12 ). Within the relationship, God’s mercy is thus closely linked to forgiveness ( Exod 34:9 ; Num 14:19 ; Jer 3:12 ; Dan 9:9 ), a more basic disposition of compassion ( Deut 13:17 ) leading to forgiveness, and to the steadfast love by which God sustains the covenant and repeatedly forgives his people ( Psalm 25:6 ; 40:11 ; 51:1 ; 69:16 ; 103:4 ; 119:77 ; Jer 3:12 ; 16:5 ).
Mercy Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary

What is the purpose of keeping or restoring the balance of goodness?

It amounts to returning the broken world to God’s providential plan of goodness for it.

 

[HarryStotle]

Spiritual Works of Mercy:

To be more succinct, I suspect they are called “works of mercy” because they come from the recognition of the mercy God has shown to us rather than from us showing actual mercy (as in, forgiveness) to others because they have wronged us. In other words, we recognize that God has shown mercy to us by forgiving us of our debt, and FROM THAT MERCY we show goodness to others to restore the world broken by sin some modicum of goodness. Hence a “work of mercy” in the sense of God’s mercy at work through us because of mercy shown by God to us.