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

[Rau]

The question actually has never been whether capital punishment should or should not be eliminated for prudential reasons, it has always been whether there is a moral reason to oppose it, a reason that justifies contradicting the universal teaching of the church and the judgment of the Fathers.

A moral decision based on prudential considerations is of course not novel. The inclusion of that in the catechism is an interesting development though.

 

[Ender]

I suppose you wouldn’t consider this ^ to be uncharitable because it does contain the phrase “just retribution”. Nevertheless, it’s clear that “redressing the disorder” means something more than simply “retribution”.

The statement lists the purposes of punishment, one of which is retribution. I have cited several sources saying just that. In fact this statement makes the very point you have been arguing against: "punishment has several purposes: redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution"

That says exactly what I’ve been saying, that redressing the disorder is in fact retribution.

This ^ is saying much of the same thing as the CDF letter to the Bishops which was about the revision of CCC 2267:

Whatever is true of 2267, none of it changes 2266, which states that the primary objective of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the offense, i.e., just retribution. It is not rehabilitation.

A moral decision based on prudential considerations is of course not novel.

If I do something I think is immoral I have sinned whether or not my judgment is right. If I do something I reasonably think is right I have not sinned, again, whether or not my judgment is right. This includes doing something someone else thinks is wrong. Judging the effects of capital punishment is not a moral judgment; it is a prudential one.

 

[EndTimes]

The question actually has never been whether capital punishment should or should not be eliminated for prudential reasons, it has always been whether there is a moral reason to oppose it, a reason that justifies contradicting the universal teaching of the church and the judgment of the Fathers.

God Condoned CP from the days of Noah onto Moses/Mosaic Law, and onward.

With advances in the state of the art of confinement of prisoners,
now the need to DP them plays second fiddle for concern for their souls / repentance

That said, we’re allowed even demanded
to use force to repel gross offenders aka defense of self and others…
even to the point of lethal force if nothing less would do the trick.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Would that all Bishops became very loudly Anti-ABORTION…

What on earth are you talking about? The Catholic Church is unequivocally anti-abortion. I’m also not sure why you are comparing the number of people executed annually in the USA with a figure that is clearly not the number of abortions annually in the USA. Not that I even think it is appropriate to draw up a balance sheet of human lives destroyed. John Donne: “Any man’s death diminishes me”. m. Sanh. 4:5: “Whoever destroys one life is as if he destroyed a whole world, and whoever preserves a life is as if he preserved the whole world.”

 

[Ender]

God Condoned CP from the days of Noah onto Moses/Mosaic Law, and onward.

Good, then it cannot possibly be immoral…or inadmissible.

With advances in the state of the art of confinement of prisoners, now the need to DP them plays second fiddle for concern for their souls / repentance

First, the state of a State’s prison system is independent of the morality of capital punishment. Second, 2266 has not been altered: the primary objective of punishment is now what it has always been: just retribution. Since defense was never primary to begin with, the argument that the death penalty is no longer needed for protection is irrelevant.

That said, we’re allowed even demanded to use force to repel gross offenders aka defense of self and others…

The death penalty has never been justified under the self defense guidelines.

 

[EndTimes]

What on earth are you talking about? The Catholic Church is unequivocally anti-abortion.

Yes . and, not all its members are…
Don’t you know that?
That’s what I’m talking about

 

[EndTimes]

First, the state of a State’s prison system is independent of the morality of capital punishment.

Could very well be …

However, the state of the art of confinement of prisons were a definite part of the CCC…

_

 

[Rau]

Good, then it cannot possibly be immoral…or inadmissible.

The underlying act itself - true. Instances of the act, potentially the great majority of them in present times, may be judged (prudentially) immoral and the Popes may hold that view so fervently that they go to great lengths to articulate a case, even through the catechism.

 

[EndTimes]

The death penalty has never been justified under the self defense guidelines.

So it seems… Which is why the Church separates both in its Teachings…

"Things: supporting the DP went from, “practically non-existent” to… non-existent.

I shouldn’t say this …

but it’s practically almost totally moot IMHO
when splitting abstract hairs wrt the CP/DP
are placed upon the backdrop of the far weightier concerns facing the Church Today…

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

You were talking about bishops. Are there Catholic bishops who are pro-abortion?

 

[Ender]

However, the state of the art of confinement of prisons were a definite part of the CCC…

Yes, but as a prudential judgment. It should be apparent that there could not be a doctrine evaluating the conditions of the world’s prison systems.

Instances of the act, potentially the great majority of them in present times, may be judged (prudentially) immoral…

I don’t think so. It’s use may be judged unwise and harmful, but morality itself is not determined by someone’s judgment, even that of a pope.

Popes may hold that view so fervently that they go to great lengths to articulate a case, even through the catechism.

Yes they can. It was probably not the best choice, however, to put a prudential judgment in the catechism.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

That says exactly what I’ve been saying, that redressing the disorder is in fact retribution.

This would mean that punishment and penal sanctions are two different things. Which is what I tried to say in post #96, and you disagreed with that. Since then you’ve made it clear that punishment and penal sanctions are two different things, that is, that “redressing the disorder” doesn’t involve rehabilitation, and therefore doesn’t necessarily involve penal sanctions. Penal sanctions, as the last several popes have taught, should have their primary orientation towards rehabilitation and reintegration.

So there’s no conflict. There’s two different things. Since the death penalty necessarily involves penal sanctions, the death penalty doesn’t fit into what the teaching of the Church says is the primary orientation of penal sanctions. And the case of Dismas doesn’t change that.

 

[Ender]

This would mean that punishment and penal sanctions are two different things. Which is what I tried to say in post #96, and you disagreed with that.

Punishment and retribution are two different things, with the latter being just one aspect of the former; punishment and penal sanctions are synonyms.

Since then you’ve made it clear that punishment and penal sanctions are two different things, that is, that “redressing the disorder” doesn’t involve rehabilitation, and therefore doesn’t necessarily involve penal sanctions

Punishment and penal sanctions are not different, and “redressing the disorder” is different from rehabilitation. The latter are two of the four objectives of punishment, along with deterrence and protection.

So there’s no conflict. There’s two different things. Since the death penalty necessarily involves penal sanctions, the death penalty doesn’t fit into what the teaching of the Church says is the primary orientation of penal sanctions. And the case of Dismas doesn’t change that.

The death penalty does not involve a penal sanction, it is a penal sanction; it is a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. As to what the church teaches as the primary objective of punishment (penal sanction), that would be retribution/“redressing the disorder”. As I pointed out, 2266 has not been rewritten, and it applies as much today as it did before the rewrite to 2267.

 

[EndTimes]

You were talking about bishops. Are there Catholic bishops who are pro-abortion?

Yes - i.e., in the opinions and observations of many - so it most definitely seem. .
and Pro-Homosexual behavior (and more) as well.

Which in turn - reflects a … the -
growing and very serious SPLIT occurring within some corridors of “Catholicism”

It’s not at all a crazy comment… It’s well known …

 

[EndTimes]

Yes, but as a prudential judgment. It should be apparent that there could not be a doctrine evaluating the conditions of the world’s prison systems.

In any and all cases -
in the Teachings of the Church
allowable CP went from “rare to practically non-existent” … is now, “non-existent”

.

 

[Ender]

In any and all cases -
in the Teachings of the Church
allowable CP went from “rare to practically non-existent” … is now, “non-existent”

Well, no, it didn’t. A prudential judgment that it ought not be used because it is (believed to be) harmful is not at all the same as a doctrine that its use is immoral per se. It may be implied that this is so but it cannot ever be asserted without contradicting and condemning 2000 years of teaching, the Fathers, the Doctors, and Scripture itself.

 

[EndTimes]

Well, no, it didn’t. A prudential judgment that it ought not be used because it is (believed to be) harmful is not at all the same as a doctrine that its use is immoral per se. It may be implied that this is so but it cannot ever be asserted without contradicting and condemning 2000 years of teaching, the Fathers, the Doctors, and Scripture itself.

Since it did … I don’t buy your argument…

 

[Patri]

Pro life for the the whole life!

That was what I did not understand before the pope spoke out against the death penalty. How could I defend life from birth till death but be OK with the state executing criminals. That is where I see people are striped of their dignity, they don’t seem to matter. Yet the crime rate in countries with the death penalty is quite high, there must be something they are not doing right. I have seen a good number of documentaries on murderers. A number of them had terrible childhoods, not every child can process pain, fear, hurt, violence. Some people snap, some have something wrong with them, for whatever reason they were not able to do the right thing and committed terrible acts. But I can’t help but wonder if the state had intervened in those terrible childhoods, if things would have been different. Instead, they intervene to condemn that person to death, when it is already too late. Some of the cases of abuse to those killers as children, were reported…

 

[Rau]

A prudential judgment that it ought not be used because it is (believed to be) harmful is not at all the same as a doctrine that its use is immoral per se.

We don’t have a doctrine declaring CP immoral per se - that would be diametrically opposed to the doctrine that it is not intrinsically evil. We have a statement that in our times killing criminals is immoral in light of circumstances. You may be right that resting on circumstances renders the statement prudential, though clearly if the judgements about circumstances are correct, then the act would be “immoral”.

 

[Ender]

I don’t buy your argument…

Do you not recognize that if capital punishment is declared now to be immoral per se then it would be a condemnation of the church which always taught that it was acceptable? Since morality cannot change, if the death penalty is immoral today then it has always been immoral, and therefore the church (including the Fathers and Doctors) taught evil as good.

Has the implication of that position escaped you?

How could I defend life from birth till death but be OK with the state executing criminals.

Because this is what the church taught?

That is where I see people are striped of their dignity, they don’t seem to matter.

And you believe the church was complicit in this? That she was unaware of how this punishment stripped man of his dignity?

I can’t help but wonder if the state had intervened in those terrible childhoods, if things would have been different.

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom… (JPII)

What is an affront to man’s dignity is to fail to treat him as a moral entity who is responsible for his own actions. What does not strip him of that dignity is to visit him with a punishment commensurate with the severity of his crime.