The death penalty-motivated by revenge?

[Ender]

The Church itself abolished the sentence from its judicial law in 1969 during a century that saw most Christian countries dispense with it as not in keeping with civil justice in our times. So unless you are claiming that the Church is heretical, we can be assured that the movement to abolish capital punishment in light of current conditions, is perfectly in keeping with Christ.

You make a point which is not relevant to my comment. You asserted earlier that:Retribution as understood under the Old Law ie. an eye for an eye, does not apply for Christians
This is false. Retribution is in fact the primary objective of all punishment and the church continues to teach this, albeit not as clearly as she ought. That is the meaning of this:*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)
The phrase “penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime” is the Lex Talionis (figuratively an eye for an eye) and “to redress the disorder” means retribution.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

You make a point which is not relevant to my comment. You asserted earlier that:Retribution as understood under the Old Law ie. an eye for an eye, does not apply for Christians
This is false. Retribution is in fact the primary objective of all punishment and the church continues to teach this, albeit not as clearly as she ought. That is the meaning of this:*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *(CCC 2266)
The phrase “penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime” is the Lex Talionis (figuratively an eye for an eye) and “to redress the disorder” means retribution.

Ender

I don’t see a point in endlessly harping on the aspect of retribution. We know that ‘retribution’ is one of the four ends of punishment. Card. Dulles helped in understanding the symbolic nature of retribution in his essay on CP…

In principle, guilt calls for punishment. The graver the offense, the more severe the punishment ought to be. In Holy Scripture, as we have seen, death is regarded as the appropriate punishment for serious transgressions. Thomas Aquinas held that sin calls for the deprivation of some good, such as, in serious cases, the good of temporal or even eternal life. By consenting to the punishment of death, the wrongdoer is placed in a position to expiate his evil deeds and escape punishment in the next life. After noting this, St. Thomas adds that even if the malefactor is not repentant, he is benefited by being prevented from committing more sins. Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

So when we speak of ‘redressing the disorder’ we can only effect that in our human capacity to redress. We are not redressing the divine order as God can. As a matter of fact, we know with great gratitude and appreciation, that we can never fully repay our debt as human beings and rely fundamentally on Gods great mercy to forgive and restore. This fact reminds us of Jesus warning regarding the unmerciful servant (Matthew 18:21-45) which in turn explains that desire within society to spare sinners from the final sentence of death in redressing the disorder.

 

[Ender]

I don’t see a point in endlessly harping on the aspect of retribution.

You raised the point; I simply responded to your comment.

We know that ‘retribution’ is one of the four ends of punishment.

Retribution is not simply “one of four” ends of punishment. It is primary and all of the others, including protection, are secondary.

Card. Dulles helped in understanding the symbolic nature of retribution in his essay on CP…

Retribution has a symbolic aspect but it is not merely a symbol. It is the foundation of justice and it is an obligation of the state.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Retribution is not simply “one of four” ends of punishment. It is primary and all of the others, including protection, are secondary.

Cardinal Dulles doesn’t treat of retribution in that way. The Catechism says the primary scope of punishment is to redress the disorder by which we know to mean redress as far as our human capacity to serve the common good goes. Outside of serving the common good, our rendering of punishment cannot claim to be a divine handywork in the way Noah or Moses or Abraham ruled their clans.

Retribution has a symbolic aspect but it is not merely a symbol. It is the foundation of justice and it is an obligation of the state.

Ender

Why not just say ‘redressing the disorder’ in keeping with Catholic language that seeks clarity. You keep saying ‘retribution’ as if it comes with a wink and a tap at the side of your nose or a secret handshake. Redressing the disorder is the human obligation of the state. Lets all be on the same page.

 

[Ender]

Cardinal Dulles doesn’t treat of retribution in that way.

Dulles did not address the point of primacy, but fortunately the church has, and she has declared that retribution is the primary objective of punishment.

The Catechism says the primary scope of punishment is to redress the disorder by which we know to mean redress as far as our human capacity to serve the common good goes.

True, and this is why the church has always acknowledged the possibility of circumstances where capital punishment ought not be used, but this is a practical objection to its use, not a moral one. It is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself.

Why not just say ‘redressing the disorder’ in keeping with Catholic language that seeks clarity.

Because “redressing the disorder” is anything but clear, as demonstrated by the fact that most people have no idea that it actually means retribution. Which, by contrast, is a term people readily understand.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

The Catechism says the primary scope of punishment is to redress the disorder by which we know to mean redress as far as our human capacity to serve the common good goes.

It’s use was also a practical necessity at the time not a moral one. The Catechism shows that by the statement… “the traditional teaching of 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.” The morality depends on if it serves the common good, which is a living concept, or is destructive to it.

Why not just say ‘redressing the disorder’ in keeping with Catholic language that seeks clarity.

Because “redressing the disorder” is anything but clear, as demonstrated by the fact that most people have no idea that it actually means retribution. Which, by contrast, is a term people readily understand.

Ender

I highly suspect that it was changed because most people had no idea that retribution meant redressing the common good rather than redressing the supernatural order.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

In order for the death penalty to be an effective deterrent to crime, there needs to be a better and more visible Cause and Effective relationship between the crime and the penalty,

In the “old days” if you were convicted of a capital crime you were hanged in the public square the day after your conviction. People could readily see the consequences of the action. You are convicted, you are executed. Plain and simple.

These days, with seemingly endless appeals, in can be years or even decades before the execution can be carried out; and even then it is done behind closed doors. When you do read about an execution being carried out, you probably don’t know the circumstances of the crime and since you cannot be a witness to it, to you it is just another execution. Ho hum.

Bring back public executions and give the convicted person one and only one appeal.

 

[dudleysharp]

SNIP
Retribution is not simply “one of four” ends of punishment. It is primary and all of the others, including protection, are secondary.
Retribution has a symbolic aspect but it is not merely a symbol. It is the foundation of justice and it is an obligation of the state.
Ender

Morally, justice or just retribution must be primary. It would be immoral to punish based upon “defense of society” if the person did not deserve the sanction, based upon 1) they committed the crime and 2) they were sanctioned based upon deserving that sanction, because of (1).

So, what the Church has done is a huge doctrinal shift, which is to suppress justice and subdue it with “defense of society”, elevating defense, by definition, an immoral foundation, over a primary, moral one.

How could that happen?

 

[dudleysharp]

we can be assured that the movement to abolish capital punishment in light of current conditions, is perfectly in keeping with Christ.

The opposite is the evidence:

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html

Jesus and the Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/jesus-and-death-penalty.html

 

[Ender]

It’s use was also a practical necessity at the time not a moral one. The Catechism shows that by the statement… “the traditional teaching of 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.”

It was not a practical necessity; perpetual incarceration has been practiced since Roman times. Nor is that statement about the traditional teaching accurate (despite its inclusion in the catechism).*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Morally, justice or just retribution must be primary.

Yes, the only justification for any punishment at all is that a person by his actions deserves it. Once the question of desert is lost so is the entire concept of justice.

So, what the Church has done is a huge doctrinal shift, which is to suppress justice and subdue it with “defense of society”, elevating defense, by definition, an immoral foundation, over a primary, moral one.

It is not a doctrinal change to oppose capital punishment for prudential reasons. Augustine opposed its use even to punish those who murdered Christians, but he did not oppose its use in other cases. He made a prudential judgment based on the conditions of his time, but it was not a moral objection. I think a similar view was taken by JPII. He opposed the use of capital punishment for practical reasons, not moral ones, therefore there is no change in the doctrine.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

It is not a doctrinal change to oppose capital punishment for prudential reasons. Augustine opposed its use even to punish those who murdered Christians, but he did not oppose its use in other cases. He made a prudential judgment based on the conditions of his time, but it was not a moral objection. I think a similar view was taken by JPII. He opposed the use of capital punishment for practical reasons, not moral ones, therefore there is no change in the doctrine.

Ender

Maybe was are talking about different things.

I am speaking about the replacement of eternal truths - in this case, justice – which are primary, and elevating secondary, secular falsehoods above those eternal truths, which is what we have with 2267.

That cannot be a prudential judgement, but has to be some sort of profound error, if not a change in doctrinal approach to eternal teachings.

1. Factually, we know that the last sentence from 2267 is false:

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56.]

In fact, the overwhelming evidence is that, given all known realities of the State’s actions to repress known unjust aggressors, that it is the proper protection of innocents from unjust aggressors that is “very rare if practically non-existent”.

“Putting more innocents at risk, by known unjust aggressors and putting those same known unjust aggressors at greater eternal risk, by allowing them to harm more innocents, as we know many will do.” is what this new Church teaching does.

The factual defense for this is overwhelming, as I have previously shown.

1. The first sentence from 2267, being:

“The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” ."

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”

“Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome); and Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics andCulture (University of Notre Dame)

1. The middle sentence within 2267:

“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Flannery and Remick’s comments apply, here, as well.

The traditional, philosophical and eternal teachings remain the same, that the Church has and does recognize that the imposition of the death penalty is based upon the sanctity of life and in conformity with the dignity of the human person, both innocent murder victim and the unjust aggressor/murderer. That cannot have changed.

Then, of course, we have this, demonstrating how completely bizarre this new teaching is:

2260: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

 

[starshiptrooper]

In order for the death penalty to be an effective deterrent to crime, there needs to be a better and more visible Cause and Effective relationship between the crime and the penalty,

In the “old days” if you were convicted of a capital crime you were hanged in the public square the day after your conviction. People could readily see the consequences of the action. You are convicted, you are executed. Plain and simple.

These days, with seemingly endless appeals, in can be years or even decades before the execution can be carried out; and even then it is done behind closed doors. When you do read about an execution being carried out, you probably don’t know the circumstances of the crime and since you cannot be a witness to it, to you it is just another execution. Ho hum.

Bring back public executions and give the convicted person one and only one appeal.

I have to disagree with you on the number of appeals. Besides appeals on the evidence, there are the constitutional and legal questions that often need to be settled. Depriving someone of life without due process of law is a very bad idea.

 

[Ender]

That cannot be a prudential judgement, but has to be some sort of profound error, if not a change in doctrinal approach to eternal teachings.

The third sentence in 2267 about the state’s ability to repress crime is undoubtedly prudential. It is an evaluation of the capabilities of modern penal systems; it is not a moral pronouncement.

The first sentence is correct up to the point of saying “…when this is the only way…” The issue here is one of historical fact: is the caveat accurate or not?

The second sentence then is the only one that could possibly be doctrinal, and it says public authority “***should ***limit itself”. That is a recommendation, not a command. It is not doctrinal. It also starts out by saying: “*If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient…” Clearly the determination of what is sufficient is a judgment. *

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

It was not a practical necessity; perpetual incarceration has been practiced since Roman times. Nor is that statement about the traditional teaching accurate (despite its inclusion in the catechism).*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)
Ender

I would actually have more respect for the argument that goes along the line of Fr Flannery ie. Pope St John Paul II is wrong and the Catechism contains an error. Your usual argument attempts only to find flaws in faithful Catholics who completely agree with the Popes and the teachings and strive to ‘think with the Church’. It depends on the use of smoke and mirrors to establish your position. I’m bowing out of this and the Catholic news thread on the issue as debating with you is not serving the Church in my opinion.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Depriving someone of life without due process of law is a very bad idea.

No one was denied due process. The person was lawfully indicted, given a fair and public trial and was convicted by a jury of his peers.

 

[Ender]

No one was denied due process. The person was lawfully indicted, given a fair and public trial and was convicted by a jury of his peers.

There are two general approaches on which to oppose capital punishment: for practical reasons and for moral ones, and it really is necessary to keep them separate. They are both valid topics but they are also quite distinct and it is not useful to blur that distinction. I occasionally comment on particular practical objections but my focus is primarily on the moral nature of capital punishment and - especially - what the church has actually taught on the subject.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

I have to disagree with you on the number of appeals. Besides appeals on the evidence, there are the constitutional and legal questions that often need to be settled. Depriving someone of life without due process of law is a very bad idea.

Responsible, thorough and “quick” appeals should be the rule.

Hard to imagine 7 years of appeals being labeled quick.

Virginia has executed 70% (108) of her death sentenced murderers since 1976 and has done so within 7.1 years, of appeals, on average, with not even a false claim of an innocent executed, and, obviously, done so in a thorough and constitutional fashion, as all others could duplicate.

See Virginia:

Saving Costs with The Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/02/death-penalty-cost-saving-money.html