Under Pope Francis, American Catholics see the ‘pro-life’ label as broader than abortion

[Ender]

I object because as you demonstrate by these paragraphs, the reason you post from Pius XII and XI, is precisely to contradict Pope StJPII.

Did you not just write “we know there is no contradiction between what was taught in the past and what is taught now”? How can you say both that there is no contradiction and that what I posted contradicts? Pick one or the other; they can’t both be true. And since when does something written within our lifetime qualify as “the past”? When does “the past” start? Last Tuesday?

As seen through these debates there are many teachings from age to age that can be used to negate each other if that’s how you roll.

No, they cannot. The church’s doctrines may develop but they do not repudiate and they do not conflict with one another. Your problem is that the church has spoken rather extensively on this subject, and what she has said is not to your liking.

The Church acknowledges that doctrine develops and speaks from different perspectives to the one unchanging principle being upheld over time.

And the unchanging principle in this case is that the state has a moral right to employ capital punishment.

God let us know through the prophets that its use as a practical matter of human justice was defensible.

God personally let us know it was defensible as a matter of justice.

We regard the justifications for its use as punishment, as defenses of its practical value to the community. That is intrinsic to the doctrine from day one. The right has always been attached to its value in the defense of life.

Even this interpretation is not as helpful as you think. Here is how the Catechism of Trent addressed the practical significance of capital punishment. *Of these remedies {for the inclination to murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. *
Which raises the question:*Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? *(J. Budziszewski)
Trent recognized the value of capital punishment in demonstrating the severity of the crime of murder, a conception that is pretty much lost today.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Cont…

But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others." Aquinas

Nor does this mean quite what you think it does either.*‘the Church in her theory and practice has maintained retributive as well as medicinal penalties…this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. *(Pius XII)

To post Pope Pius XII whose words clearly are in defense of the states use of capital punishment at the time he was living…

This is an objection the pope explicitly rejected.*It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the above-mentioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time, and that a general and abiding validity cannot therefore be attributed to them… This, in turn, is as little determined by the conditions of time and culture as the nature of man and the human society decreed by nature itself’. *

…to ‘contradict’ Popes and bishops who clearly defend the communities desire to abolish the death penalty today… is just unacademic and devious and I’ll even go further. It’s immoral.

That you have no adequate defense for your position hardly makes it immoral for me to point that out. I have not made a single assertion on this topic that is not supported by a citation from a pope, catechism, Doctor, or Father of the church. I don’t even cite scripture without first citing where the church herself cites it. The best explanation for your difficulty is not that my arguments are immoral but that yours are simply wrong.

You on the other hand are proposing that there are no circumstances where capital punishment could ever be abolished according to your interpretation of the doctrine.

What I said was I could not imagine such circumstances, not that they could never exist.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
I object because as you demonstrate by these paragraphs, the reason you post from Pius XII and XI, is precisely to contradict Pope StJPII.

If you had read what I wrote more carefully you wouldn’t be so confused. I object not to the words written but to the reason you choose them to try and create division between popes and to juxtapose teachings of one pope against those of another in order to negate one. I object to your motivations and intentions in using the words of one pope against another.

As seen through these debates there are many teachings from age to age that can be used to negate each other if that’s how you roll.

No, they cannot. The church’s doctrines may develop but they do not repudiate and they do not conflict with one another. Your problem is that the church has spoken rather extensively on this subject, and what she has said is not to your liking.

Again, your poor reading skills are confusing you. People have used scripture and the teachings of the Church to justify evil actions over and over. The Church teachings are not at fault… just the reader/actor. The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty if that is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

Now, I find there to be no contradiction between this and any other teaching that you quote. You do. That’s how you roll. That is not a reflection of the Church or its teachings it is a reflection of a failing in your own understanding.

The Church acknowledges that doctrine develops and speaks from different perspectives to the one unchanging principle being upheld over time.

And the unchanging principle in this case is that the state has a moral right to employ capital punishment.

The state has the right to use capital punishment with conditions.

If the conditions aren’t met, the right dissolves.

God let us know through the prophets that its use as a practical matter of human justice was defensible.

God personally let us know it was defensible as a matter of justice.

It is defensible as a matter of justice so long as it serves the common good. Without that qualification it is not defensible.

We regard the justifications for its use as punishment, as defenses of its practical value to the community. That is intrinsic to the doctrine from day one. The right has always been attached to its value in the defense of life.

Even this interpretation is not as helpful as you think. Here is how the Catechism of Trent addressed the practical significance of capital punishment. *Of these remedies {for the inclination to murder} the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder. *
Which raises the question:*Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? *(J. Budziszewski)
Trent recognized the value of capital punishment in demonstrating the severity of the crime of murder, a conception that is pretty much lost today.

Ender

If universal wisdom directs me to wear warm clothes, thick boots and a woolly beany when I go outside I am intellectually aware that this directive serves my health and wellbeing and will be a directive to serve the human race until the end of time.

Now come middle of my tropical summer, I’m not going to go about sprouting this directive to others who I see wandering around in shorts.

Universal wisdom directs us to do different things in different seasons to serve the one main goal… bodily health and wellbeing and to reject those directives as seasonally valuable is to actually reject the core good that they serve. That is just common sense.

 

[LongingSoul]

Cont…

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others." Aquinas

Unfortunately although you post from Card. Dulles essay often, you fail to have read his explanation of retribution as the state conceives of it…

“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.”

To post Pope Pius XII whose words clearly are in defense of the states use of capital punishment at the time he was living…

This is an objection the pope explicitly rejected.*It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the above-mentioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time, and that a general and abiding validity cannot therefore be attributed to them… This, in turn, is as little determined by the conditions of time and culture as the nature of man and the human society decreed by nature itself’. *

Pope Pius XII was addressing the objection that retribution had any meaning in human justice but as Card. Dulles writes, the retributive aspect of punishment is served in human justice by the medicinal/practicle value of punishments that serve the common good. Sadly your quotes are missing the mark completely.

…to ‘contradict’ Popes and bishops who clearly defend the communities desire to abolish the death penalty today… is just unacademic and devious and I’ll even go further. It’s immoral.

That you have no adequate defense for your position hardly makes it immoral for me to point that out. I have not made a single assertion on this topic that is not supported by a citation from a pope, catechism, Doctor, or Father of the church. I don’t even cite scripture without first citing where the church herself cites it. The best explanation for your difficulty is not that my arguments are immoral but that yours are simply wrong.
What I said was I could not imagine such circumstances, not that they could never exist.

Ender

The position I hold is that of the Church and that is that the use of the death penalty today is unnecessary and unworthy since it harms the good which it was meant to promote and we have means of safeguading the community without resorting to it . Justice is not suspended by abolition… it is served by it because if a punishment is serving an end different to the promotion of lifes sacred nature… it is not just and is immoral. It is you that is wrong, very wrong for attempting to distort the moral nature of the death penalty and human accountability in its use.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

If you had read what I wrote more carefully you wouldn’t be so confused. I object not to the words written but to the reason you choose them to try and create division between popes and to juxtapose teachings of one pope against those of another in order to negate one. I object to your motivations and intentions in using the words of one pope against another.

That part concerned me, too. Bringing up quotes of prior popes in order to negate what another more current pope has said. If they actually did “negate” each other, it would make it appear that “one of them is wrong about something” and the whole idea of “quote a pope” would go away. But that’s only when the conversation “makes sense” rather then being “ego/agenda-drive” I guess.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty if that is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

I agree. Let’s hope we all agree on that, although I’m afraid we’re not even to that point.

The state has the right to use capital punishment with conditions.

If the conditions aren’t met, the right dissolves.

It is defensible as a matter of justice so long as it serves the common good. Without that qualification it is not defensible.

Bingo! That’s what this whole thing boils down to. Protecting society is one thing. Draining millions of dollars per case that could be put to work elsewhere, in order to pursue this for the sake of keeping it intact even though it is no longer needed, is not.

But some don’t like that because they apparently we still believe in “in eye for an eye” or “a life for a life” as a call for retribution? “Justice must be done” means that “somebody is going to pay” for the wrongs in the world – kind of like what things must have been like before Jesus gave His life to show us a Better Way.

As it is now, in well-known cases where something “really bad” was done, we seem to think that the victims – and society in general – has some sick right to “see them suffer for their crimes” as some form of group therapy. As if society actually OWES the victims and survivors, the right to see the person who did it “hurt.” Nothing Christian at all about it; how come Catholics aren’t petitioning Congress to do this thing that Jesus would surely have nothing of?

I know – because so many thing “pro-life” just means you are in favor of making abortion illegal.

Sure, people pick their battles. I don’t necessarily expect an “anti-abortion activist” to also be a full-time lobbyist for other pro-life issues. But where anybody gets the idea to say we should not call other “pro-life” issues what they are because it “dilutes” the term, is so far off I don’t even know what to say about it. All that does is work against and insult others’ pro-life efforts.

Why don’t we also say that abortion is so “highly immoral” that we should restrict use of the term “highly immoral” to only those cases involving abortion, lest we “dilute” the meaning of the term “highly immoral?”

 

[Ender]

I object to your motivations and intentions in using the words of one pope against another.

This is a judgment you are explicitly forbidden to make.*Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states. *(Aquinas)
Since you have objected to citations from the “past” I’ll provide some more modern ones.*2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Your assumptions and accusations about my intentions could hardly be less favorable, which brings this objection into play as well. All in all, not a commendable post.2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty if that is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

There seems to be some debate over “the traditional teaching of the church” on this matter. It is clearly different in this definition, which you should note does not include any restriction based on the protection of society.*The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. *

The state has the right to use capital punishment with conditions.
If the conditions aren’t met, the right dissolves.

And the determination of whether the conditions are met is prudential, not doctrinal, therefore there may be a legitimate difference of opinions on the matter.

Ender

 

[Ender]

“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? What conclusion are we to draw from this? That the state doesn’t need to be concerned with trying to be just? What?

Pope Pius XII was addressing the objection that retribution had any meaning in human justice…

Actually what he was addressing was whether his comments on capital punishment were limited to his time and place (your interpretation) or were applicable to all times and places (his interpretation).

The position I hold is that of the Church and that is that the use of the death penalty today is unnecessary and unworthy since it harms the good which it was meant to promote and we have means of safeguarding the community without resorting to it.

The determination of whether the community is safer with or without capital punishment is properly the realm of social scientists. There is no moral calculation, no moral choice involved in determining which position is more accurate.

As to whether the use of capital punishment contributes to the “culture of death” and is in that way harmful, this too is a judgment. There is no church doctrine that can make that determination, therefore it is invalid to suggest that either position is more moral than the other. One of us is surely wrong in terms of correct or incorrect, but neither of us is wrong in terms of moral or immoral.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Bringing up quotes of prior popes in order to negate what another more current pope has said. If they actually did “negate” each other, it would make it appear that “one of them is wrong about something” and the whole idea of “quote a pope” would go away.

If the positions of two popes appear to disagree what is the proper approach to take to reconcile their positions? Is it to simply ignore the earlier pope, or to interpret their comments in a way that accepts the validity of both?

Let’s hope we all agree on that, although I’m afraid we’re not even to that point.[the traditional teaching on capital punishment]

No we aren’t. There is good reason to believe the caveat contained in 2267 is a new restriction and was not part of the traditional teaching.

Bingo! That’s what this whole thing boils down to. Protecting society is one thing.

Is protecting society the primary objective of punishment? If it isn’t, shouldn’t the focus be directed at satisfying the primary objective rather than a secondary objective?

But some don’t like that because they apparently we still believe in “in eye for an eye” or “a life for a life” as a call for retribution? “Justice must be done” means that “somebody is going to pay” for the wrongs in the world – kind of like what things must have been like before Jesus gave His life to show us a Better Way.

*when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. *(St. Bellarmine)
This is what the church teaches, which is why she requires that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime. That is the basic concept of the Lex Talionis.

As if society actually OWES the victims and survivors, the right to see the person who did it “hurt.” Nothing Christian at all about it; how come Catholics aren’t petitioning Congress to do this thing that Jesus would surely have nothing of?

There is a debt that the victim owes, and that debt is only paid through punishment.*When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. Now when a man ordains his action directly for the good or evil of the whole society, retribution is owed to him, before and above all, by the whole society; secondarily, by all the parts of society. *(Aquinas)
One of the reasons people are so opposed to capital punishment is they have become uncomfortable with the entire concept of retribution, but retribution is nothing more than justice. We have gone a long way down the wrong road when justice itself has become suspect.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

This is a judgment you are explicitly forbidden to make.Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states. (Aquinas)
Since you have objected to citations from the “past” I’ll provide some more modern ones.*2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Your assumptions and accusations about my intentions could hardly be less favorable, which brings this objection into play as well. All in all, not a commendable post.2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor.

You have condemned yourself by your own hand. I am not guessing at your intentions because you clearly state your intentions time after time. If I post the CCC or EV or one of the recent popes, your immediate tactic is to quote one of the pre V2 popes?

"Did you not just write “we know there is no contradiction between what was taught in the past and what is taught now”? How can you say both that there is no contradiction and that what I posted contradicts? Pick one or the other; they can’t both be true."

You acknowledge that it is I that state that there is no contradiction between the teachings of different popes and I have never expressed a belief in any contradiction but you imply that I did say that! It’s an outright lie on your part to force me to agree with you that the Popes statements are contradictory. I will never do that. Your words condemn you, not me.

There seems to be some debate over “the traditional teaching of the church” on this matter. It is clearly different in this definition, which you should note does not include any restriction based on the protection of society.*The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. *
And the determination of whether the conditions are met is prudential, not doctrinal, therefore there may be a legitimate difference of opinions on the matter.

Ender

The Trent catechism speaks to a society that requires capital punishment to serve justice. The 1992 catechism speaks to a society transitioning to abolition. The 1997 catechism speaks to a society thoroughly repulsed by the death penalty in the hands of a sick culture of death.

All perspectives are a call to the one singular truth… that recognition of the sacred nature of life is critical to our species survival and to our relationship with God. Each statement expresses this same truth in a different age.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Is protecting society the primary objective of punishment? If it isn’t, shouldn’t the focus be directed at satisfying the primary objective rather than a secondary objective?

Yes. The only reason the CCC condones any use of the death penalty is due to its responsibility to protect other members of society. It is for*** that reason only***, that the death penalty is considered under any circumstances.

Therefore if is isn’t actually “necessary” then as LongingSoul pointed out, the “condition” under which capital punishment is considered licit by the Church, is not met.

So the only way you can be in favor of the death penalty and be consistent with Church teachings, is if you honestly believe that death row inmates escaping and doing further damage, is a salient threat to society. And let’s think about that; how many people get killed by death row inmates? It does happen, but it makes huge news so it doesn’t happen very often.

And if it’s about that, we’re doing a pretty poor job. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Of the 7,879 people under sentence of death between 1977 and 2010, 16% had been executed, 6% died by causes other than execution, and 39% received other dispositions. So for all the money and effort we spend on each conviction, we are not getting our money’s worth. Estimates of the cost to convict a death row inmate range from $650,000 to $1.7 million and above. So let’s say it costs one million dollars to put someone on death row. Considering they have an 86% chance of not getting executed, that raises the cost-per-execution to over $6 million per. And for that kind of money, we as a society have gotten pretty good at keeping them in the cage after all we’ve “invested” in them.

There was one case of a murder by a prisoner who did escape, in the 2010 statistics. So yeah, if we had killed all 7,879 prisoners, maybe that murder would not have happened.

But basically if 84% of death row inmates are not even being executed, then one of two things must be happening: either we DO have means to prevent them from doing further harm (yes we did slip on that one, bringing our success rate at protecting “society” from death row inmates down from 100% to 99.987%).

So you can use the Church as an excuse to protect us against that one escapee-murder, by having accelerated the process and gone ahead and killed those 7,879 so the one couldn’t have escaped and done further damage.

Just a related thought: I wonder how many babies Dr. “Tiller the Killer” had slaughtered, compared to the person who killed him? If he killed at least 8,000 babies, then yes he needed to be killed.

But you can’t use the Church as an excuse to want to see harm done to any form of sinner, or you are completely negating the action of Jesus on the cross, and making a mockery of “forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

I leave you with this quote: “You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” - Anne Lamott

MS

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

By the way, I’m not actually claiming to be “completely against” the death penalty.

I am only claiming that a) “pro-life” does extend beyond “anti-abortion politics,” and b) that one cannot use “all human life is sacred” as a battle cry, without applying to ALL human life and not just selected ones.

Remember, pro-aborts favor only protecting the lives of “certain” human beings. Let’s not become one of them, by having the desire to see death row inmates killed, for ANY OTHER REASON than to protect society.

And all this jazz about past popes, the current Holy Father sees “pro-life” in a wide fashion. If you don’t agree with his views, then you aren’t in full communion with the current Bishop of Rome who is currently presiding NOW, on the way you view “pro-life” and its implications. And whether that should be a concern for you, is not for me to say.

 

[Ender]

Ender actually does think that Pope StJPII is simply wrong and not speaking for the Church or for the Catholic world. If you read what he wrote which I then responded to… you can clearly see rejection of the words of Pope StJPII.

No matter how I phrase things you cannot seem to understand them. I suspect that’s because you object not to what I actually say but to what you think I mean by what I say, something you invariably get wrong.

• I believe JPII was offering his judgment about the advisability of using capital punishment.
• I do not believe 2267 or EV 56 represent new doctrines.
• If 2267 is a judgment and not a doctrine it does not require our assent; careful consideration yes, assent no.

Ender

 

[Ender]

To which posters are you referring? And how do you know they have “no theological expertise”?

Whether or not someone has theological expertise is not relevant. The only thing that matters is whether one’s argument is valid. All other things being equal we would expect someone with theological training to have the better of the debate with someone with no training, but in the end it is one’s argument and not one’s pedigree that matters. Besides, if someone with no training can more than hold his own with someone with a degree, one obvious reason would be because it is easier to defend truth than to defend error.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Yes. [Protection is the primary objective of punishment]

This is incorrect, protection is only a secondary objective of punishment. 2266 identifies the primary objective:*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *
Whatever else may be true, it is clear that the prevention of future crimes does absolutely nothing to redress the disorder caused by crimes already committed. You may be uncomfortable with this but the fact remains that retribution - retributive justice - is primary.*The third justifying purpose for punishment is **retribution **or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment *(USCCB)
Retribution is “the third” purpose here because the USCCB merely listed them; they did not rank them. Interestingly they only listed three purposes…they did not even mention protection. None of your other arguments hold up as they are all based on the misconception that protection is primary.

So the only way you can be in favor of the death penalty and be consistent with Church teachings…

…is by understanding what the church actually teaches about punishment, and that begins with understanding the primary objective of all punishment.*The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” *(Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., Professor of Law, Ave Maria Law School)
Ender

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

This is incorrect, protection is only a secondary objective of punishment. 2266 identifies the primary objective:*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. *
Whatever else may be true, it is clear that the prevention of future crimes does absolutely nothing to redress the disorder caused by crimes already committed. You may be uncomfortable with this but the fact remains that retribution - retributive justice - is primary.*The third justifying purpose for punishment is **retribution ***or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment (USCCB)
Retribution is “the third” purpose here because the USCCB merely listed them; they did not rank them. Interestingly they only listed three purposes…they did not even mention protection. None of your other arguments hold up as they are all based on the misconception that protection is primary.

How does killing an inmate on death row do ANYTHING to help the victims, or anybody else? It can have the tangible effect of aiding the egos and political careers of the prosecutors and others who will grandstand over the conviction even though there is a 84% chance they won’t be executed, but other than that what? Anything tangible, that is, other than feeding their lust for revenge? And if it is “good” and “restorative” for the victims to see the person killed, why not tortured as well?

You can’t “undo” the damage for a crime by killing someone. You can kill them and be pretty sure they won’t do it again, but it isn’t going to help the original victims. Except for certain “victim advocacy” blather who seem to think it’s sufficiently cathartic to warrant having a death penalty if only for that purpose.

…is by understanding what the church actually teaches about punishment, and that begins with understanding the primary objective of all punishment.*The USCCB correctly defined retribution as “the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal.” *(Joseph L. Falvey, Jr., Professor of Law, Ave Maria Law School)
Ender

Restoration of justice? What does that mean, prove we have power over citizens? We have to prove that we can not only keep them in a cage, we can kill them? We need that to be safe?

OK. A person kills somebody. You are going to “restore” justice by killing that person? What is it, as soon as the perpetrator dies the victim is suddenly raised from the dead?

Your current argument version is based around the idea that somebody actually benefits from a death row inmate being executed. That somehow a victim is better off because they “feel better” knowing this person has been killed? Somehow I think we’ve gotten to the point where if the public hears about a particularly bad crime, somehow we feel like we’re “owed” somebody dying over it. That’s not about church teachings; that’s about societal sickness that Church teachings will hopefully dispel given enough time – but of course it will persist until the Second Coming.

MS

 

[Ender]

How does killing an inmate on death row do ANYTHING to help the victims, or anybody else?

You can’t “undo” the damage for a crime by killing someone.

No punishment can undo the damage caused by a murder…so why should someone be punished? What justifies any punishment given that nothing “helps the victims, or anybody else”? The reason the church defines retribution as the primary objective is that it is a matter of justice. That is the relation between crime and punishment.* A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium *

Restoration of justice? What does that mean…

the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice
This is what justifies punishment: a person who sins deserves to be punished, just as a person who does something good deserves a reward. It is a matter of justice.

Your current argument version is based around the idea that somebody actually benefits from a death row inmate being executed. That somehow a victim is better off because they “feel better” knowing this person has been killed?

No, nor is this “my” argument. I am presenting the church’s explanation.

Ender

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

No, nor is this “my” argument. I am presenting the church’s explanation.

What is “your” argument? Do you – you personally – think a man “deserves” to die for having been convicted on death row by a jury of their peers? Do you think that having been so convicted means they are “more sinful” than the rest of us?

And finally, if it were time for a man to die, would you accept the position as “the guy who pulls they switch?” Throws the first stone? Or would you prefer that is done somewhere that you don’t have to deal with seeing it happen?

 

[gam197]

Granted I have read only parts of this thread but why do I feel that we are back to the eighties and “The Seamless Garment” once again?

Pro -life entails everything and always has.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Granted I have read only parts of this thread but why do I feel that we are back to the eighties and “The Seamless Garment” once again?

Pro -life entails everything and always has.

:bible1:

 

[Ender]

What is “your” argument?

“My” position is the one I believe the church has always taught.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.

Do you – you personally – think a man “deserves” to die for having been convicted on death row by a jury of their peers?

A person deserves to die who commits deliberate murder. If he did not deserve this punishment then the church has supported an undeserved punishment for nearly two millennia. Nor is it the conviction that makes a criminal deserve punishment; it is the crime.

Do you think that having been so convicted means they are “more sinful” than the rest of us?

A person who commits a specific crime deserves a specific punishment for that crime. If he didn’t there would be no justification for punishing him.

And finally, if it were time for a man to die, would you accept the position as “the guy who pulls they switch?”

There are a lot of dirty jobs I wouldn’t want to do but that has nothing to do with whether they ought not be done.*What is more hideous than a hangman? What is more cruel and ferocious than his character? And yet he holds a necessary post in the very midst of laws, and he is incorporated into the order of a well-regulated state; himself criminal in character, he is nevertheless, by others’ arrangement, the penalty of evildoers. *

Ender