We’ve been bishops in 3 death penalty states. It’s time to stop federal executions for good

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

CatholicSooner:

Maybe it is my fault but I read their statements saying it is intrinsically evil.

You need a crash course on the nature of intrinsic vs extrinsic evil.

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

That basically means that an act that in one lot of conditions is good, can in other conditions be evil. When the tenet that the act serves ie. promoting the inviolable nature of human life, is serving to promote the antithesis of the tenet ie. who dies is subject only to the opinion of a human agenda… the act is no longer just in the eyes of God.

I’m not following. Are you saying that something that the Church calls intrinsically evil can in fact be good in some conditions?

No that is the definition of extrinsically evil. Something that is not in itself an evil or a good. But it’s moral quality depends on the circumstances in which it is used.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I do not like the death penalty. I wish it wasn’t used. But I do not like the changes that the Church made to the Catechism either.

Simply put, the reason they give in the new wording of the Catechism makes it all about the dignity of the human person and that the death penalty should not be permitted because of that dignity.

This is the main reason given. This seems to imply that it never should have been permitted. Because the human person has always had this dignity.

It’s just that we know better now. Not because we are superior to our ancestors, but availed of an increased understanding about the nature of the human being we are obliged to reflect that in civil life.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Now you just sound protestant

“We know better than our ancestors” is a weak reasoning.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Now you just sound protestant

“We know better than our ancestors” is a weak reasoning.

Typical US faction insult to every other Western country which has abolished the death penalty.

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

Now you just sound protestant

“We know better than our ancestors” is a weak reasoning.

Typical US faction insult to every other Western country which has abolished the death penalty.

Sorry but that is a common response from protestants in the US.

“We just know better”
“We are more enlightened”
“We are more wise now”

It is all hogwash

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

CatholicSooner:

Now you just sound protestant

“We know better than our ancestors” is a weak reasoning.

Typical US faction insult to every other Western country which has abolished the death penalty.

Sorry but that is a common response from protestants in the US.

“We just know better”
“We are more enlightened”
“We are more wise now”

It is all hogwash

Every other Western country in the world has abolished the death penalty and Pope St John Paul II recognised that as a reflection of “a growing moral awareness” about the dignity of man. So unless you think he was a protestant and every other western country are all being protestant for claiming a better understanding of things, I call out what is a typical insult by that certain US faction, who only walk to the beat of their own drum.

 

[CatholicSooner]

CatholicSooner:

Emeraldlady:

CatholicSooner:

Now you just sound protestant

“We know better than our ancestors” is a weak reasoning.

Typical US faction insult to every other Western country which has abolished the death penalty.

Sorry but that is a common response from protestants in the US.

“We just know better”
“We are more enlightened”
“We are more wise now”

It is all hogwash

Every other Western country in the world has abolished the death penalty and Pope St John Paul II recognised that as a reflection of “a growing moral awareness” about the dignity of man. So unless you think he was a protestant and every other western country are all being protestant for claiming a better understanding of things, I call out what is a typical insult by that certain US faction, who only walk to the beat of their own drum.

So you really think that in the last 100 years, man has suddenly become more aware of the dignity of life? Really?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Yes. And the Church recognises that.

 

[CatholicSooner]

Yes. And the Church recognises that.

Fair enough. I think that is quite comical with the issues going on in the Church and in society.
There have been some amazing doctors of the Church in the past that I guess were just not as enlightened as us

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It seems you are using two words to describe the same thing. How are they not synonyms?

Punishment is not a synonym of the ‘orientation of penal sanctions’. But punishment and retribution are synonymous. To say that retribution is the primary focus of punishment is redundant.

The CCC uses the term “redress the disorder” not “retribution”. Those two terms are not synonymous.

The CCC now goes on to state that the primary orientation of the penalty is to be rehabilitation. The imposed penalty, aka retribution, has to be oriented toward rehabilitation.

The good thief on the cross is apparently no justification for capital punishment having a rehabilitative aspect to it, despite it being an alleged example of it.

 

[Ender]

Punishment is not a synonym of the ‘orientation of penal sanctions’.

You used the terms “primary scope” and “primary orientation” as if they meant different things. Those were the terms I was referring to as synonymous.

To say that retribution is the primary focus of punishment is redundant.

Not according to the church: “The three justifications traditionally advanced for punishment in general are retribution, deterrence, and reform.” (USCCB)

The CCC uses the term “redress the disorder” not “retribution”. Those two terms are not synonymous.

It is difficult to get people to accept this, but that is exactly what the term means. “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.” (USCCB)

The CCC now goes on to state that the primary orientation of the penalty is to be rehabilitation.

No, this is nowhere in the catechism.

The good thief on the cross is apparently no justification for capital punishment having a rehabilitative aspect to it, despite it being an alleged example of it.

Apparently those who wrote the catechism thought it was. How can you simply dismiss it?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The words “orientation” and “scope” are not synonyms. The words “punishment” and “retribution” are synonyms.

So you will accept a statement from the USCCB as being what the Church teaches, but not the statement from the CDF. The CDF has the authority to request a change in the CCC. And it has the authority to write an explanation of the changes to the Bishops (USCCB).

No, this is nowhere in the catechism.

Yes, it is here:

In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

The CDF letter to the Bishops explains what “the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state” means.

Apparently those who wrote the catechism thought it was. How can you simply dismiss it?

The is no indication that he, Dismas, would have repented if he had not been crucified next to Jesus. In fact it seems obvious that something in the course of events of the crucifixion of Jesus caused Dismas to see that Jesus was indeed the Son of God. Maybe it was Mary at the foot of the cross. But I think that his conversion was due to the extraordinary circumstances of his execution, not the execution itself.

 

[Ender]

The words “orientation” and “scope” are not synonyms.

So you assert. Why don’t you define them so we can better understand them.

So you will accept a statement from the USCCB as being what the Church teaches, but not the statement from the CDF.

The statement from the USCCB was a simple, uncontroversial explanation of church teaching. The was the understanding of the church when 2266 was written. Retribution, which is the primary objective of punishment, meant then and means today the restoration of the order of justice.

Nor has the CDF changed the catechism. What was primary before is primary now, their comments in an explanatory letter notwithstanding.

The CDF letter to the Bishops explains what “the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state” means.

What is implied in the CDF letter does not replace what is written in the catechism.

The is no indication that he, Dismas, would have repented if he had not been crucified next to Jesus.

Nonetheless, the catechism specifically identifies this incident as an example of a punishment that contributed to “the correction of the offender”, therefore it is incorrect to assert that capital punishment is contrary to that objective.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Yes. And the Church recognises that.

Fair enough. I think that is quite comical with the issues going on in the Church and in society.
There have been some amazing doctors of the Church in the past that I guess were just not as enlightened as us

Would you say the same thing about the great doctors of medicine in the past who treated a gangrenous limb by amputation in order to safe the whole body, because now the doctors are able to treat the limb differently thus not requiring the step of amputation?

The doctors of the past treated according to their knowledge and skill with the same integrity as the doctors of today with their advancements in knowledge and skill… and the doctors of the future will treat future patients according to their increased knowledge and skill.

To say that the great doctors in the past treated the only right way and we should never aim to find less painful or debilitating treatments seems far more comical and dare I say downright evil to me.

 

[Hodos]

Do you not believe that societies can advance beyond the death penalty even if it “could” be used?

Not sure that God gives us the right to choose on this issue. “Could” should not even be a question here. In Genesis 9:5-7, God requires that the lives of those who shed blood should be forfeit. If we are advancing beyond God’s command, that is an issue.

 

[Emeraldlady]

1ke:

Do you not believe that societies can advance beyond the death penalty even if it “could” be used?

Not sure that God gives us the right to choose on this issue. “Could” should not even be a question here. In Genesis 9:5-7, God requires that the lives of those who shed blood should be forfeit. If we are advancing beyond God’s command, that is an issue.

“Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked.” - Summa Theologica II II q64 art2

If the death penalty represents a danger to the good, the Lord commands us to forbear from it. The Church deems the death penalty as cruel and unnecessary in this age of fighting a pervading ‘culture of death’.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So you assert. Why don’t you define them so we can better understand them

It’s not me who asserts. It’s a dictionary’s definition. Feel free to look up the words yourself.

Retribution, which is the primary objective of punishment, meant then and means today the restoration of the order of justice.

Again, you can look at a thesaurus and find that “punishment” and “retribution” are synonyms. Take it up with the thesaurus, or the dictionary.

What is implied in the CDF letter does not replace what is written in the catechism.

Expounds, not replaces. I’m sure you understand the difference. I’m also sure that you are aware that the CCC is a teaching guide, but not an exhaustive one. As you yourself are using terminology from USCCB documents, you should surely be able to appreciate a CDF letter to the Bishops. The fact that you are refusing to acknowledge it’s authority is problematic to this discussion.

 

[Ender]

Again, you can look at a thesaurus and find that “punishment” and “retribution” are synonyms.

The church, however, uses the terms differently, and that’s the meaning that matters.

The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

Retribution - retributive justice - is an end of punishment, just as is rehabilitation.

Expounds, not replaces. I’m sure you understand the difference.

Yes, I do, but if it is merely expounding on what was said it surely cannot contradict what was said. That would be replacement. Given that the CDF letter does not replace the catechism, then what is in the catechism is still unquestionably valid, and the primary objective of punishment is not rehabilitation, but retribution.

I’m also sure that you are aware that the CCC is a teaching guide, but not an exhaustive one.

It is one thing to say the catechism does not contain the entirety of church doctrine, but quite another to suggest what it does contain is inaccurate - or superceded by letter from the CDF.

As you yourself are using terminology from USCCB documents, you should surely be able to appreciate a CDF letter to the Bishops.

This is not a question of whose source carries greater weight. The bishops weren’t promulgating new doctrine, they were merely explaining the old one. They did nothing more than lay out what the church taught.

The fact that you are refusing to acknowledge it’s authority is problematic to this discussion.

What I refuse to accept is your understanding of the situation. That’s much less problematic.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Retribution - retributive justice - is an end of punishment, just as is rehabilitation.

Maybe you should seek a better meaning of Cardinal Dulles’ words. I doubt that his 2001 statement was in conflict with a USCCB statement on crime and punishment from the year before.

Our society seems to prefer punishment to rehabilitation and retribution to restoration thereby indicating a failure to recognize prisoners as human beings.

Here, “punishment” and “retribution” are being used somewhat synonymously.

At any rate, I think it’s fairly clear that CCC n. 2266 is not in conflict with n. 2267. It’s also fairly clear that “redressing the disorder” is not another way of saying “retribution”.

 

[Ender]

Maybe you should seek a better meaning of Cardinal Dulles’ words. I doubt that his 2001 statement was in conflict with a USCCB statement on crime and punishment from the year before.

They said exactly the same thing: punishment has multiple purposes/objectives/ends of which one is retribution. (The USCCB statement I cited was from 1980.

Our society seems to prefer punishment to rehabilitation and retribution to restoration thereby indicating a failure to recognize prisoners as human beings.

Yes, they are. They are also being used improperly and implying something that cannot be specifically claimed without obviously contradicting church doctrine. Retribution (properly understood) is in fact primary over and above rehabilitation, so it is quite proper to prefer the former to the latter.

this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. (Pius XII)

The “retributive function” of punishment is not punishment itself. It is obvious the terms are not synonymous nor has the church ever used them that way.

At any rate, I think it’s fairly clear that CCC n. 2266 is not in conflict with n. 2267. It’s also fairly clear that “redressing the disorder” is not another way of saying “retribution”.

There is no conflict only if the meaning the church uses is ignored. Although to be fair she could have been a lot clearer on this point.

A punishment imposed by legitimate public authority has the aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense, of defending public order and people’s safety, and contributing to the correction of the guilty party. (Compendium to the Catechism)

Whatever else may be true, the correction of the guilty is an objective quite apart from redressing the disorder, therefore rehabilitation cannot be considered the primary objective of punishment since that designation is assigned to redressing the disorder.

According to Church teaching, a civil government’s response to crime should be to uphold justice by achieving four goals: rehabilitate the offender, protect society from the offender, deter future offenses, and redress the disorder caused by the offense. (Texas Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2019)

This is exactly what Dulles said, except he said “retribution” instead of “redress the disorder”. Those are the synonymous terms.

Traditionally, punishment had been justified by three purposes: (i) Retribution of damaged juridic order. Punishment aims to redress the disorder introduced by the offense…. (Fr Jim Achacoso, 2010)