B
- Status
R
Rau
Guest
I have often observed that the absence of a dictionary built into the Catechism is a large omission. Words such as homicide and murder would be good initial inclusions…
Ender’s point is that it does appear that the Church has taught that Capital Punishment is permissible solely on the grounds of retributive justice. The only way I can reconcile that with current teaching related to murder is if the forbidden act is “direct and voluntary killing of an innocent” human being. For my money - this is the definition of murder, and I don’t know why it needs further qualification as in “murder of the innocent”.
I agree.
Logically, 2263 states that “murder of the innocent” is a subset of “intentional killing”. A subset can also be the whole, though that is a special case. I’m not confident which is intended here.
Ender’s point is that it does appear that the Church has taught that Capital Punishment is permissible solely on the grounds of retributive justice. The only way I can reconcile that with current teaching related to murder is if the forbidden act is “direct and voluntary killing of an innocent” human being. For my money - this is the definition of murder, and I don’t know why it needs further qualification as in “murder of the innocent”.
R
Rau
Guest
(Baltimore Catechism)
[/INDENT]Ender
The word “lawfully” in red above is presumed to mean morally.
- Understood. The principal of double-effect explains why and the conditions.
- Understood. The Catechism (and elsewhere) opines on the circumstances that make war permissible. If I recall, they are related to self-defence and the proportionate use of force, prospect of success, etc.
- But what is “lawful execution?” Merely being in accordance with civil law can’t get you there. The lawmakers may be despots. So if it means execution within the bounds of the moral teaching on capital punishment, we need to locate and scrutinise the relevant teaching. If said teaching is in the CCC, then CP is only lawful under the conditions set out in 2267 (ie. quite restrictively, as per the current CCC and statements of the current and prior 2 Popes).
R
Rau
Guest
Some thoughts lifted from a paper : “Burying the Executioner’s Ax: A Christian Rejection of Capital Punishment”
google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCUQFjAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbarryustorage.blob.core.windows.net%2Fassets%2Fdocs%2Ffounders-week%2Fcappunish%2520otl%25203%2520%25282%2529.pdf&ei=vAvTVPy6FML38QX2-oCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHihfpHnGa4BmcTyUocqVlsneaXGg&bvm=bv.85464276,d.dGc
The document provides some historical perspective, reviews Biblical Passages in favour of and against capital punishment, as well as moral arguments, but does not review actual historical Church teaching.
*The primary purpose of punishment is to “redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Yet, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus excludes retaliation that mirrors the violence of the criminal. Christians are to interrupt the cycle of violence through transformative acts that oppose evil and injustice without succumbing to vengeful and violent means. In general, we do not support repeating the crime of the wrongdoer, directed at the wrongdoer. Would we consider pouring acid on the face of a criminal convicted of doing that to another?
Taking a life does NOT “redress the disorder caused by the offence” - it only mirrors and replicates it. Murder cannot be undone, killing murderers does not return the murdered or revitalise their family.
Taking a life does not teach the sanctity of life, but rather the sanctity of violence.
The Biblical passages calling for the death penalty are found in the first 5 books of the Bible; none appears in the prophets, the writings, or the New Testament, which do not teach the Death Penalty. Not only does the New Testament fail to teach the death penalty, but Jesus’ radical and consistent demand that his followers reject vengeance and embrace forgiveness places a major road-block in the way of any Christian attempt to construct a biblical justification for capital punishment.*
google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCUQFjAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbarryustorage.blob.core.windows.net%2Fassets%2Fdocs%2Ffounders-week%2Fcappunish%2520otl%25203%2520%25282%2529.pdf&ei=vAvTVPy6FML38QX2-oCoDg&usg=AFQjCNHihfpHnGa4BmcTyUocqVlsneaXGg&bvm=bv.85464276,d.dGc
The document provides some historical perspective, reviews Biblical Passages in favour of and against capital punishment, as well as moral arguments, but does not review actual historical Church teaching.
*The primary purpose of punishment is to “redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Yet, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus excludes retaliation that mirrors the violence of the criminal. Christians are to interrupt the cycle of violence through transformative acts that oppose evil and injustice without succumbing to vengeful and violent means. In general, we do not support repeating the crime of the wrongdoer, directed at the wrongdoer. Would we consider pouring acid on the face of a criminal convicted of doing that to another?
Taking a life does NOT “redress the disorder caused by the offence” - it only mirrors and replicates it. Murder cannot be undone, killing murderers does not return the murdered or revitalise their family.
Taking a life does not teach the sanctity of life, but rather the sanctity of violence.
The Biblical passages calling for the death penalty are found in the first 5 books of the Bible; none appears in the prophets, the writings, or the New Testament, which do not teach the Death Penalty. Not only does the New Testament fail to teach the death penalty, but Jesus’ radical and consistent demand that his followers reject vengeance and embrace forgiveness places a major road-block in the way of any Christian attempt to construct a biblical justification for capital punishment.*
R
Rau
Guest
Ender, have you referenced any Church teaching which contradicts the following:
*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, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. *By that I mean, have you referenced Church teaching that states the Death Penalty is acceptable notwithstanding that an alternative punishment is available which reasonably defends human lives against the unjust aggressor?
2267 is actually a curious form of statement. A kind of double negative. It does not actually say that Church teaching has blessed as moral any use of death penalty - in any circumstance. It just leads the reader to naturally infer traditional Church teaching supports, or at least tolerates (fails to repudiate) recourse to the death penalty where alternative means would effectively defend human lives… We are led to infer that - but the statement does not say it.
Curious language indeed.
Given 2267 is accepted, what would be logically possible in respect of traditional teaching?
*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, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. *By that I mean, have you referenced Church teaching that states the Death Penalty is acceptable notwithstanding that an alternative punishment is available which reasonably defends human lives against the unjust aggressor?
2267 is actually a curious form of statement. A kind of double negative. It does not actually say that Church teaching has blessed as moral any use of death penalty - in any circumstance. It just leads the reader to naturally infer traditional Church teaching supports, or at least tolerates (fails to repudiate) recourse to the death penalty where alternative means would effectively defend human lives… We are led to infer that - but the statement does not say it.
Curious language indeed.
Given 2267 is accepted, what would be logically possible in respect of traditional teaching?
- it supports the death penalty regardless of the availability of alternatives;
- it supports the death penalty only if the alternatives are not effective;
- it is silent on the death penalty;
- it is silent on the death penalty in cases were alternatives are effective.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Would you say that direct and vol killing of the guilty is currently acceptable (as in a putatively justified case of CP).
I cannot see that.
Just like self-defence, one may kill the “guilty” (who mortally attack you) but not directly intend their death but your own defence.
Neither can the State directly will the death of the guilty - rather it is the common good (defence of the state) that must be willed. And this will be evident when all other means of protecting the State have been exhausted.
Present Popes are saying that in modern times such alternatives are now trivially available.
Therefore, to still insist on CP betrays a direct and voluntary intention by the State to will the death of the prisioner rather than the protection of the State. This is immoral.
I find perfect similitude of modern Magisterial principles of moral thinking between individual self-defence and legitimate Captial Punishment.
If that appears to contradict Aquinas’s principles of retributive justice even unto the death penalty…then I humbly suggest Aquinas is not as clear or definite on that point as some make him to be.
R
Rau
Guest
I can choose death of an aggressor. I will my survival, rather than his death, but I can deliberately kill him should the means at my disposal be intrinsically of that nature.
CP may be of the same nature.
There is no need to view Aquinas as always right.
.
E
Ender
Guest
Oh, well we shall have to determine which of our positions is saner.
I dispute (1) entirely. The one restriction to killing in self defense is that the death not be intended. The whole purpose of capital punishment is the death of the criminal; his death is very much intended. Since death may not be intended in self defense, and is very much intended in an execution, it would seem they have different justifications.
As for (2), I’m not sure how you can believe that in the execution of a prisoner his death is not intended, but if it is intended that would make it unjustifiable as self defense…but you’ve already said self defense justifies capital punishment. I’m struggling with this.
Regarding (3) I think the trouble here is with the meaning of terms. I’ve given my definition of murder (An unlawful killing, where lawful means God’s laws), it would help if you gave me yours.
My interpretation of 2263 had nothing to do with capital punishment, it was about the meaning of intentional killing - the definition of murder, besides, the concepts of self defense and capital punishment are separate, and the church has always addressed them separately.
LongingSoul has gone down this path; I’d appreciate it if you didn’t.
I understand that self defense does not allow intentional killing. This has been my point as to why capital punishment cannot be considered self defense since capital punishment is intentional killing.
All punishment is based primarily on the concept of justice. Self defense remains what it has always been, a secondary objective. This is what is still taught.The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime
All punishment, including the death penalty, is justified as redress for the disorder caused by the committed crime. That violation is not redressed by preventing the next crime.
Capital punishment is a form of …punishment, and as such is governed by the same doctrines that apply to all punishments. And how can CP be understood as anything other than a direct and intentional killing? What exactly is an execution about if it isn’t the direct and intentional killing of the prisoner?
“My” view is neither more nor less than what the church has taught for 2000 years.
True, the heresy is in holding that a state does not have the right to capital punishment.
Medieval? 1954 is medieval? I will point out again: doctrine can change but development does not include repudiation.*“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
That says what? That capital punishment does not intend the death of the criminal or that CP is not justified in the context of self defense? I don’t know what you’re asking for. But let me ask this: why does it have to be in the last 50 years? Are we to believe that what the church said 100 years ago no longer applies? Do we really believe in a church whose doctrines go out of date so fast? You’re suggesting that the writings of all the Fathers and Doctors of the church as well as those of the first 260 popes are irrelevant. Do you recognize what you’re throwing out just so you can more easily sustain your position on this one topic?
Ender
R
Rau
Guest
Ender - previously, you appeared to be complaining that the Church was being inconsistent in its teaching which addresses or impinges upon the morality of the death penalty. In the above, you appear to be saying that in these paragraphs, Capital Punishment is “outside their scope”. But it is not - 2267 brings it in explicitly and subordinates or constrains its use to provisions of this section of the Catechism.
It’s worth pursuing the “inconsistent” point. To do so, you’d need to present some teaching that argues the Death Penalty is moral whether or not it’s necessary for protection of human life.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, I wrote that that was my interpretation. The church uses that wording and clearly she means according to God’s laws, not merely man’s laws.
The right to war includes defense but is not limited to it, and it is not based on the concept of self defense, or at least the prohibition against intentional killing does not apply to war.
If we believe the church is more than just the men who constitute the current Magisterium then we cannot believe that doctrines are created and repudiated by its latest members.*It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. And, if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty.
*Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Prior to 1995 there is no church document I have seen that limits the use of capital punishment to the question of whether it is needed for defense. As to whether there is a document that contradicts the 1997 catechism, I believe there is. That would be the 1992 catechism which also contains a statement beginning with “The traditional teaching of the church…” but does not contain that restriction or any mention at all of defense. The 1992 version goes on to address protection but not in the context of the traditional teaching of the church. Nor have I encountered any earlier document that has made the use of CP dependent on its necessity for defense. There are a number of references to the fact that it provides protection, and that this is an acknowledged benefit, but none that include that caveat. Even the catechism and Evangelium Vitae 56 point to nothing at all in support of this limitation, unless you count each pointing to the other as definitive.
It is indeed, and this is likely because it is a statement of a prudential judgment and not a doctrine. But I’ll ask why you limit the discussion to 2267. Are not 2266 and 2260 equally relevant? Surely we are not free to simply ignore them.
Does this mean you recognize a contradiction between 2267 and what the church has traditionally taught?
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
I don’t believe the church has been inconsistent in her teaching, nor do I believe that what JPII said, or what the catechism says, conflicts with what the church always has - and still does - teach. My position is that the interpretations made by my opponents, if they were correct, would mean that the church has been inconsistent and has in fact repudiated her traditional teaching. My objections have not been with what the church teaches but that what she has said recently has been misunderstood.
I don’t understand what you mean by “outside their scope.” Clearly 2267 speaks directly to CP. 2266 doesn’t address it directly but is included under that sub-heading. Sections 2263-2265 are about self defense and say nothing about CP. I would like your understanding of 2260; what do you think that section is saying?
I can provide citations that speak to the validity of CP without mentioning any dependence on protection, but I cannot provide any citation that says it is justifiable whether or not it is needed for the protection of society. Nor for that matter can I find any statement that links its use to any of the other two secondary objectives of punishment. Unless you accept the argument that the lack of a teaching that CP is not dependent on rehabilitation or deterrence means that there is such a dependence, what is the argument that the lack of a teaching that CP is not dependent on protection is somehow significant?
Capital punishment is treated by the church according to the same criteria that apply to all punishment, and the primary objective of all punishment is retribution - retributive justice. That has always been how the church has discussed it. That and the fact that God himself explicitly allowed it. Nor did God include a caveat about protection.
Ender
R
Rau
Guest
Here is 2267 for convenience:
*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, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68 *
Are we to conclude that 2267 (first para) is a false statement? - are you saying it gives an erroneous statement of traditional church teaching?
Perhaps the defence of humans has been assumed, or perhaps the Church was silent or unclear, and is now being clear? It was not wrong to say that CP is permitted in serious cases (with no more qualification - which is not the same as saying “in all cases”). Perhaps now the situation is being defined more precisely.
This is questionable. The first para of 2267 purports to be a factual statement, so should not be judgemental in nature. The 2nd paragraph, far from being a judgement, is in fact “instructional” in nature. I agree that the last paragraph is judgemental, and fairly explicitly so, but it adds nothing material beyond the previous para.
In Fidei Depositum, Pope John Paul II said, “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” John Paul II also stated that the Catechism “is given as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine.”
I don’t really understand 2260, but I doubt it is advocating and “eye for an eye”, do you? The sermon on the mount addressed that. Perhaps more a foretelling? 2266 I don’t read this to say that murderers should be killed, rapists raped, or that those who disfigure others should be disfigured. In my view, such replication of the wrong act does not redress disorder, other than by eliminating an evil threat.
I am yet to discover what has been traditionally taught. The first para of 2267 is the only authoritative document I have on that point.
R
Rau
Guest
How are we misunderstanding this “instruction”:
*[2267 2nd para] If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. * Is “authority” welcome to ignore this as mere opinion? I note it does not say “authority should consider…”
It seemed to me that your Post #49 sought to deem CP was out of scope 2263,7,8 by the manner in which you responded to Blue Horizon.
Commented earlier. What do you think the sermon on the mount is saying?
Retributive Justice is constantly referenced throughout the Bible. In the Old Testament, it appears to be Man who is to action retribution. In the New Testament, it appears to be God.
Matthew 5:38-39:
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.“
Romans 12:17-19, Paul, in harmony with what Jesus said in Matthew 5:38-39:
“Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay (ἀνταποδίδωμι),” says the Lord. “
2 Thessalonians 1:6-8:
“God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.“
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Ender as prev advised I am no longer engaging you on this topic.
You are so fixed on the assumption that your view of retrib justice is correct you re-interpret all obvious recent evidence to the contrary to this end …without even suspecting that maybe you need to revise your understanding of retrib justice.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
Thankyou, you cannot find such Magisterial support as I supected.
This confirms me in my view that what you call past clear teaching wrt Capital Punishment
(and the legitimacy of its directly choosing the death of the guilty) has always been ambiguous or debated without consensus.
The CCC makes very clear that your position (which may have been the position of some in the past) was never confirmed. And now it is being blown out of the water by evolution of CP teaching in the light of self-defence principles.
Directly intended killing of a lethal attacker is immoral, this now holds wrt even justified CP as well. Its all pretty clear in the CCC and more recent Magisterial teaching.
B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I agree it at first seems out of place.
However I think it is making the point that all blood (life) primarily belongs to God (is sacred).
He alone is Lord of life and may legitimately and directly will the death of whomsoever he chooses…
While there may be very limited instances in which States and individuals may legitimately choose to kill another … such rights are not absolute, it has the tone of reluctance and a last resort and that right is heavily fenced with conditions that must be taken very seriously.
Amongst those conditions the CCC appears to be adamant that
(i) such lawful killing may never be directly intended.
(ii) it must only be for the equally worthy purpose of self-defence (be that of oneself or the State).
- Status