I see.
Then you may want to look elsewhere in the CCC.
At the moment, I am looking at crime and punishment.
I believe you are stepping into the realm of just war or perhaps self defense.
- Status
Then you may want to look elsewhere in the CCC.
At the moment, I am looking at crime and punishment.
I believe you are stepping into the realm of just war or perhaps self defense.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Self-defense…that’s how I see the justification for the death penalty. In other words, if there is no other way to protect society from such a person (and we would have no real reason to believe this person is a threat if they had not committed a crime such as murder), and incarceration isn’t working, then society is defending itself by protecting it’s members in the only way possible.
E
Ender
Guest
This is not the justification the Church uses. Again, the primary objective of punishment is the redress of the disorder caused by the sin (crime); that is, it is retribution … justice. The defense of society is a valid objective but it is a secondary one. For capital punishment to be employed it first of all must be a just punishment for the crime.
But there is proof that prison itself does not protect society. There are any number of examples of prisoners killing other prisoners, killing guards, and escaping to kill again on the streets but there are no calls for more executions because of these obvious failures.
The Church (prior to 1995) never pointed to the protection of society as the controlling factor in determining the use of the death penalty. Its use had always been seen as primarily a question of just retribution.
Ender
Do you really believe that the death of someone actually makes up for the crime?
E
Ender
Guest
This raises a number of points, the first being that I’m not giving you my personal opinion; I’m relating what I believe the Church teaches.
Second, as for making up for a crime, nothing can make up for the loss of a person who has been murdered so from the perspective of society there is no punishment that can undo what has been done. It’s not like you can reimburse someone for what has been stolen.
As for expiation, however, this does appear to be what the Church teaches. First, expiation is necessary for every sin, not just murder, and expiation takes the form of punishment.
*{modern penal} **theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty *
The Church teaches that a just society has an obligation to impose criminal penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crimes and this has always been the justification for the application of the death penalty, not self defense or the defense of society.
Ender
Again, this is not what the CCC says.
The CCC is quite clear concerning the application of the death penalty.
Here it is again:
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Hi vz,
I took a hiatus for a bit, but wanted to return to this.
Actually I am looking at crime and punishment, exclusively in fact, and not at all any consideration of just war or self defense.
Anyway, to return to my line of questioning above, in the spirit of clarification. It seems to me that you want to say that the Death Penalty hasn’t anything to do with punishment, and yet you haven’t yet (unless I missed it) explained why the CCC insists that only a guilty person be a candidate for the death penalty.
You could, if you wanted, attempt to say that the CCC means guilty of threatening society. But in order to do so you might have to back track because I believe you had already agreed that “establishing the guilt” of a party meant the antecedant or precipitant unlawful action that landed someone in the justice system to begin with.
My point is that it seems to me on reading the CCC that only those who are guilty of something other than threatening society are candidates for the death penalty. They must also be a threat to society – but first, they must be guilty of another crime.
Can you think of a reason why they must also be guilty of a crime, in addition to being a threat, in order to be candidate for the death penalty?
Thanks,
VC
I understand.
You are having difficulty understanding why I can view the death penalty as something other then punishment but still link it to crime exclusively.
The death penalty is inextricably linked to punishment as this is listed within the CCC as an option.
I have difficulty viewing it as ‘punishment’ as the CCC also has provided definitions for punishment (paragraph 2266) that I do not see as qualities within the death of an individual.
However, it would appear that the CCC also treats the death penalty differently then other forms of punishment. It is the only sentence that the church has seen fit to address specificly and to limit.
Apparently I am not alone in viewing the death penalty as a unique means of answering crime that is different from most forms of punishment.
E
Ender
Guest
Section 2267 of the Catechism is based on section 56 of JPII’s Evangelium Vitae and if you look at that section (EV 56) you will see that the pope is explicitly addressing the death penalty in the context of punishment for crimes - penal justice.
This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. … The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society.
Just so, but regardless of this all the teachings on punishment and justice still pertain. The problem with 2267 is that it is the prudential opinion of JPII and conflicts with what the Church has always taught on these other topics. I think you see this in that you can point to nothing other than 2267 (or EV 56) to support your position as there is nothing whatever written since the Apostles that reinforces it. There really is no argument here other than “because the pope said so.” On the other side, I can cite any number of references to earlier Church documents that cannot be reconciled with 2267. The weight of Church teaching does not support 2267.
Ender
Nevertheless, it is part of the CCC.
We are not free to pick and choose the church teachings that we follow.
Actually, I have the evidence of my own conscience.
I know it is not useful for the purposes of a debate, so I have not mentioned it before, but I find it comforting that I reached the same conclusion concerning the death penalty that the CCC says long before I had actually read through what either Pope JPII or the CCC had to say on the topic.
As for ‘the Pope says so…’ not at all.
The Catechism says so.
That is much more then an opinion piece people often ascribe when touting the death penalty without restriction.
I believe you are mistaken here.
The paragraphs in the CCC carry the full weight and authority of the church teaching.
The CCC* is* church teaching.
What you can cite are a number of references that do not carry the weight and authority of the catechism.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Using the death penalty in such a way is nothing short of psychological torture.
E
Ender
Guest
I would argue that this is precisely what you are doing in that you are ignoring everything else the Church teaches that conflicts with 2267.
Section 2267 of the Catechism is based on section 56 of Evangelium Vitae. The first version of the Catechism came out in 1994, Evangelium Vitae in 1995, and the revised version of the Catechism was published in 1997. Section 2267 was rewritten in the revised version to conform to EV 56; that is, the Catechism repeats what JPII said two years earlier. If you follow the footnotes in each of those documents you will see that they reference one another; each points to the other and to nothing else. There is nothing in prior Church teaching to support this conclusion. The Catechism says what it does because this is what the pope said and for no other reason.
Not in this case. This section is the opinion of JPII and does not carry the weight of doctrine; this is why Cdl. Ratzinger said:
“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”
This is not correct either. The application of the death penalty was specifically allowed by the Catechism of Trent (1566), the Baltimore Catechism (1891), and the Catechism of Pius X (1905) as well as being approved by at least a half dozen popes going back to Innocent I in 405. Vatican City had the death penalty on her books until 1969.
Ender
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Not difficulty, exactly. What I’m hoping to do is contribute to your thinking in such a way as may help you refine your own thoughts on the matter. I’ll be clear here and say that what I am getting at isn’t an attempt to get you to change your own personal views on the use of the death penalty, but rather what the death penalty has to entail.
What I’m actually hoping to do is help you see is that the idea that the death penalty can be used but if used not as punishment has some (I think grave) moral problems.
Yes, exactly, and I hope I can show why.
I understand vz. I suspected that might be one of the difficulties. I’d like to attempt to explain what is going on in that paragraph, and how it needs to inform any discussion on the death penalty. I’ll reproduce the salient portion here:
CCC 2266:
The CCC is referring to the classical ends of punishment. It’s necessary to recall that we often use “punishment” in a narrow sense, but the CCC uses it in the broad general sense. These classical ends of punishment are: 1) first and primarily retribution, 2) reformation or rehabilitation, 3) deterrence and 4) protection of society.
In the words of the CCC 1)redressing the disorder, 2) correction, 3) defending public order, 4) protecting people’s safety.
What is of crucial importance in this discussion (or any discussion on punishment) is that the primary end of punishment must always be sought. The remaining three ends may or may not be fully accomplished, or accomplished to greater or lesser degrees – and to the extent they are sought or accomplished we might say a punishment is a good or bad one. But to the extent the primary end of punishment is not obtained, we say the punishment is unjust. An ideal punishment would obtain all the ends, but sometimes that isn’t possible. But at least it must obtain the primary end.
This is because for punishment to be just it must be proportional to the crime of the guilty party. Furthermore, for any of the other ends to be justly sought these too must be based upon the primary end. In fact, if the primary end of retribution isn’t present, seeking any of the other ends would be morally wrong!
An example should show what I mean. If retribution (i…e a just punishment or pain inflicted on a party because of their guilt) is not essential to punishment, but rather can be done away with and another end sought, then pain could be inflicted on an innocent person in order to obtain those ends. For example one could “make and example” of an innocent person as a deterrent to other would be criminals. We could say “this is what will happen to you (20 lashes!) if you steal!”
But, as we see, it is guilt that calls for some sort of retribution, for punish – and it is guilt that must be established before we can punish. It is then possible to also seek to make the just punishment a deterrent of others (or the guilty party) or corrective of the guilty party.
Another example should make it clear. If the end of rehabilitation wasn’t based upon and limited by the retributive end of punishment, we could, for instance punish someone with extremely harsh punishments for a minor infraction, in order to rehabilitate them, i.e. in order to keep them from doing the bad act again. But this would be, as I think you’ll admit, unjust and immoral (though probably effective).
There is more to say, and specifically how the above applies to capital punishment or the death penalty (you hit on some of the issues in your previous post). I’d be interested in examining it if you feel it might be useful to you, or of interest.
Thanks for the conversation,
VC
P.S. I just want to add, as we approach the Feast of Divine Mercy, that mercy also has a place in a discussion on punishment. May God be merciful to us, and may we be merciful to others!
It is the CCC that you are arguing with.
You can claim it was opinion, you may or may not be right; I’ll not claim expertise there.
However, It is paragraph 2267 of the CCC, and carries the full weight as an official teaching of the Catholic Church.
E
Ender
Guest
This is true in more ways than one. I am arguing against one part of the Catechism (2267) by using other parts of the same Catechism. It conflicts with itself (as Verbum Caro has been pointing out.)
Here is a comment by Cardinal Avery Dulles from an article titled Catholicism and Capital Punishment:
The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.
No, it does not. A prudential judgment, even that of a pope, is not doctrine. If it were doctrine then Ratzinger would never have said that this is a topic on which Catholics may disagree. The mere fact that opinion has been included in the Catechism does not change its nature; it is still opinion.
More significantly, Church doctrine does not develop in a vacuum and spring forth newly formed from each new pope. The Church teaches eternal truths: what was true before is true now, but you focus entirely on 2267 as if that was all that mattered despite the fact that the Church has taught differently for nearly 2000 years. Why is the 12 year old CCC the only document that matters? How can you summarily dismiss the Catechism of Trent which was the unchanged teaching of the Church for over 300 years? Or the Baltimore Catechism? There is no justification for acting as if these documents have only historical interest but are otherwise irrelevant for understanding what the Church teaches.
Ender
Correct.
But the CCC is doctrine. As I said earlier, we are not free to pick and choose the teachings we live by.
It is not our place to dismiss doctrine on the basis that we believe was taught in the past.
It is our place to accept the doctrine handed us.
There are no irrelevant doctrines. Nor are there doctrines that ‘cancel out’ or discount other doctrines. There are however changes in understanding.
If someone were to believe that some teaching of the past contradicted a current doctrine, then the first thing I would suggest is to carefully examine the authorative documents to see which truly carries the weight of the church authority and which does not. Then I would suggest that their understanding of the previous teaching (the contradicting one) may not have been the understanding that was in mind when it was put down.
E
Ender
Guest
You say this for my benefit but don’t apply it yourself so let me help with that examination.
*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *Cardinal Ratzinger (2004)
Explain how one may have a diversity of opinion on Church doctrine.
*“The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation” *USCCB (2005)
Once again, how can something like this possibly be said about anything that is Church doctrine? It is inconceivable that such a position would be expressed about anything the Church teaches, anything, that is, that is not merely opinion.
“In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.” Cardinal Avery Dulles (2001)
The phrase “prudential conclusion” that Dulles uses means: opinion.
Your position that 2267 represents Church doctrine simply by its inclusion in the Catechism is contradicted by the opinions of those who in fact ought to know.
Ender
Then it is your position that the opinions of cardinals and bishops carries more weight then the Catechism itself?
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
vz and Ender,
As a suggestion, perhaps it might be more fruitful to table the discussion regarding prudential decisions versus doctrine and focus, for now, on what we understand the Catechism to say.
My contribution to this thread, so far, has focused on what I believe to be a profound weakness in the argument/concept that the death penalty is not punishment. In fact, I’ve tried to outline why an attempt to separate the death penalty from the concept of punishment (in particular the retributive end of punishment) would result in the death penalty, or any other criminal penalty, becoming an immoral action.
I welcome any thoughts on the above and on my prior post.
VC
As a suggestion, perhaps it might be more fruitful to table the discussion regarding prudential decisions versus doctrine and focus, for now, on what we understand the Catechism to say.
My contribution to this thread, so far, has focused on what I believe to be a profound weakness in the argument/concept that the death penalty is not punishment. In fact, I’ve tried to outline why an attempt to separate the death penalty from the concept of punishment (in particular the retributive end of punishment) would result in the death penalty, or any other criminal penalty, becoming an immoral action.
I welcome any thoughts on the above and on my prior post.
VC
- Status