Where is the justice?

[Ender]

Perhaps I misunderstand the item in the catechism, but I thought that punishment was a device to obtain atonement, not to inflict physical or mental pain, or discomfort for its own sake.

Punishment is the means by which one pays the debt incurred by sin, whether one atones for the sin or not. Even if one has repented of the sin and been forgiven, punishment is still required; justice requires that the debt of sin be repaid.

If the purpose of punishment is not as a tool to achieve atonement, then it is vengeance.

I have quoted several Church documents that disagree with this definition. If you are Catholic then you need to rethink your position based on what the Church teaches; if you are not Catholic then we may not get any further with this discussion as there is no authority I could point to which would influence your opinion.

Ender

 

[Ceil-1]

It is scary how viloent people are getting. There is an acceptance of cheating, lying and taking what one hasn’t earned. This murdering is indicative of a lack of self-control- the sin of anger taken to the level of rage without even a thought as to holding back. The same with lust, pride, envy, etc. It used to be people repressed these things in themselves. Now it’s just do whatever you feel like doing. I think society is finally getting the idea of how we’ve screwed up, indulging our children and criminals, etc.
I think the tide is about to turn. I hope so.

I don’t favor the death penalty because of the risk to the innocent, and for the sake of the offender, to give him time to repent. I think these people should be taken to an island somewhere and left to fend for themselves. Now there would be a penitential life. And if someone comes along and kills them, they get what they deserve.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Punishment is the means by which one pays the debt incurred by sin, whether one atones for the sin or not. Even if one has repented of the sin and been forgiven, punishment is still required; justice requires that the debt of sin be repaid.

a·tone (-tn)
v. a·toned, a·ton·ing, a·tones
v.intr.

1. To make amends, as for a sin or fault: These crimes must be atoned for.
2. Archaic To agree.
   v.tr.
3. To expiate.
4. Archaic To conciliate; appease: “So heaven, atoned, shall dying Greece restore” Alexander Pope.
5. Obsolete To reconcile or harmonize.
   [Middle English atonen, to be reconciled, from at one, in agreement : at, at; see at1 + one, one; see one.]
   a·tona·ble, a·tonea·ble adj.
   a·toner n.
   The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

I have quoted several Church documents that disagree with this definition. If you are Catholic then you need to rethink your position based on what the Church teaches; if you are not Catholic then we may not get any further with this discussion as there is no authority I could point to which would influence your opinion.

Ender

Dear Ender,
I believe that the definition which I have culled off the net supports my position, that the catechism item is being misunderstood.
It is NOT punishment that is required, but atonement, and punishment may be used as a tool to achieve this end.
That is how I understand this item of the catechism.
The punishment is not an end in itself, but a means to an end.

 

[Ender]

a·tone (-tn)

1. To make amends, as for a sin or fault

The only way to make amends for a sin is through the punishment that is prescribed. Atonement is not achieved through good works or a change of heart. Punishment is the only means through which the debt of sin can be paid, and the greater the sin the greater the punishment must be.

I believe that the definition which I have culled off the net supports my position, that the catechism item is being misunderstood.
It is NOT punishment that is required, but atonement, and punishment may be used as a tool to achieve this end.
That is how I understand this item of the catechism.
The punishment is not an end in itself, but a means to an end.

This is not just a single item in the catechism; I have quoted several popes and various encyclicals. I don’t doubt that you can cull things from the net to support pretty much anything. You will have a much harder time culling something from the Vatican web site or any of the writings of the Church to support your contentions.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

The only way to make amends for a sin is through the punishment that is prescribed. Atonement is not achieved through good works or a change of heart. Punishment is the only means through which the debt of sin can be paid, and the greater the sin the greater the punishment must be.
This is not just a single item in the catechism; I have quoted several popes and various encyclicals. I don’t doubt that you can cull things from the net to support pretty much anything. You will have a much harder time culling something from the Vatican web site or any of the writings of the Church to support your contentions.

Ender

It seems here, Ender that our views diverge in a way which cannot be eased. Your view is based upon LAW, and mine upon JUSTICE.
Law is OT theology, whereas Justice comes from the words of Our Lord, as found in the Gospel(s).
Your view of punishment is OT Vengience.
My view of atonement is Our Lord’s call to repentance, and ‘rebirth’.
If you choose the former over the latter, I must ask: ‘Why are you a Christian, and not a Jew?’ This question echoes Paul, saying: ‘Moses gave us the LAW, but GRACE is from Christ Jesus.’
Grace implies repentance, atonement, and forgiveness.
(In the NT Latin, the word we translate as pity and compassion, in the context of alms-giving, is the same word translated as JUSTICE.)
The LAW only give punishment. The LAW is for JEWS.
Justice, mercy, pity and compassion are for Christians.

 

[Sixtus]

Ender posted:

Even if one has repented of the sin and been forgiven, punishment is still required; justice requires that the debt of sin be repaid.

I thought the price of the sin was paid for in full [and some] by Christ, but it was the ‘guilt’ which still had to be purged, but I may be wrong!

 

[Ender]

Your view is based upon LAW, and mine upon JUSTICE.

Not exactly … this is from post #87:
Voco pro Tatiano:

Are you considering the DP in terms of euthanasia, or as an act of vengeance?

Ender:

Neither, I consider it an act of justice.

Your view of punishment is OT Vengience.

My view of punishment was quoted from bishops, popes, and doctors of the Church; yours is … yours.

My view of atonement is Our Lord’s call to repentance, and ‘rebirth’.

My view of atonement is … well, I guess I’m stuck with what the Church proclaims it to be. Your position would be stronger if you could cite a Church document that supported it. I have cited any number of them to support my position and you have basically rejected them all. How do you propose to convince that you are right and the Church is wrong?

Ender

 

[Ender]

I thought the price of the sin was paid for in full [and some] by Christ, but it was the ‘guilt’ which still had to be purged, but I may be wrong!

That’s not a distinction I want to make at this point. I don’t mean to imply that it’s not a significant question but, either way, I don’t think it changes the point re punishment: whether it is to pay for the sin or purge the guilt, punishment is required … and it is justice that requires it.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

General answer to ALL of Ender’s points.
Dear Ender,
It is clear from all of your postings that you confuse LAW with Justice.
They are not the same.
They are indeed very different.
Lawyers try to pretend that they are instruments of justice, but they are harlots of the LAW.
No, I am not being gratuitously coarse: a harlot prostitutes her body for hire, by soliciting. A lawyer prostitutes his soul for hire, but uses a solicitor to arrance the prostitution.
‘Prostitution’ from Latin : ‘for reward’
Magistrates call themselves Justices of the Peace, but they too are harlots of the LAW.
Even friends of court have to approach the brothel of the LAW to achieve Justice.
The LAW is from Moses.
Grace, mercy, pity, compassion, or LOVE is from Our Lord.
Look at the legal profession
How many sons of Moses do you find, in comparison to the general population.
No, this is not an anti-Jewish rant.
Each to his own.
But know whom you serve.
Do you follow, or belong to Moses, or to Our Lord?
Btw, the definition of ‘atonement’ was from an American dictionary.
My position is strictly Gospel based.
Where Mother Church seems not to be Gospel based, then I believe that either Mother church is in error, or that Mother Church is misunderstood, and that can mean by either the congregation, or by officers of the Church.
My personal belief is that Mother Church is not in error, but some of her officers are, due to misunderstanding.
However, you have not shown me anything which states absolutely that punishment is an end in itself.
Words which you interpret as punishment, among them, cleansing, are better seen as atonement.
I feel you choose to misunderstand the words of Our Lord for your own purpose.
That too is something Our Lord reviled the Pharisees for.
The choice is yours:
Are you for Our Lord, or are you for Moses?
Do you cry for LAW and punishment, or plead for Justice, (which is mercy, compassion, pity and LOVE), and atonement?

 

[Ender]

My position is strictly Gospel based.

My position is strictly based on the teaching of the Church and this is really the source of the difference between us.

My personal belief is that Mother Church is not in error, but some of her officers are, due to misunderstanding.

Officers … you mean her popes, the magisterium and the fathers and doctors of the Church? You are selective in what you accept; you appear to be quite comfortable rejecting whatever the Church teaches that doesn’t accord with your own opinion.

I feel you choose to misunderstand the words of Our Lord for your own purpose.

I have continually quoted what the Church teaches, something you have yet to do. You don’t seem to recognize that your argument is not really with me but with the Church.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’ll try again to lay out what the Church’s teaching is regarding punishment and justice.

JPII - General Audience 29 September 1999
“God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful ***justice ***that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good”

JPII - Salvifici doloris
“Thus the personal dimension of punishment is affirmed. According to this dimension, punishment has a meaning not only because it serves *to *repay the objective evil of the transgression with another evil, but first and foremost because it creates the possibility of rebuilding goodness in the subject who suffers.”

JPII - Evangilium vitae
56) “The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.”

Paul VI - Indulgentarium doctrina
“3. It is therefore necessary for the full remission and—as it is called—reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished … but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of the universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God … The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences.”

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I’ll try again to lay out what the Church’s teaching is regarding punishment and justice.

JPII - General Audience 29 September 1999
God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful ***justice ***that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good"

That is: it is a tool of atonemkent.

JPII - Salvifici doloris
“Thus the personal dimension of punishment is affirmed. According to this dimension, punishment has a meaning not only because it serves *to *repay the objective evil of the transgression with another evil, but first and foremost because it creates the possibility of rebuilding goodness in the subject who suffers.”

That is: it enables atonement.

JPII - Evangilium vitae
56) “The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.”

That is: help and direct the offender to atonement.

Paul VI - Indulgentarium doctrina
“3. It is therefore necessary for the full remission and—as it is called—reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished … but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of the universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God … The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences.”

That is: to understand that atonement is required to pay for malice and sin.

Ender

Dear Ender,
All of the texts you have given, which you understand as requiring punishment as an end in itself, are clearly requiring punishment as a means of a greater aim, which is clearly atonement. The words themselve are not present, but the definitions given fit the words like an old glove.

 

[Ender]

JPII - Salvifici doloris
“… **punishment **has a meaning not only because it **serves to repay the objective evil of the transgression with another evil, but first and foremost because it creates the possibility of rebuilding goodness in the subject who suffers.”

That is: it enables atonement.

Let’s go back to the definition of atonement: “to expiate”, and the definition of expiate is to extinguish the guilt incurred. It seems that for you atonement means repentance, and although that is the hoped for result, repentance does not repay the debt incurred by sin. As the above quote says, it is punishment that “serves to repay the objective evil of the transgression” whether or not the sinner repents. There can be no atonement without punishment (with some specific exceptions) but there can be atonement without repentance.

That is: to understand that atonement is required to pay for malice and sin.

No, atonement is what exists when the payment is made; it is punishment, not repentance, that is the payment.

All of the texts you have given, which you understand as requiring punishment as an end in itself, are clearly requiring punishment as a means of a greater aim, which is clearly atonement.

I have never said that punishment is an end in itself. I said that it is the means by which the debt of sin is repaid. Atonement - meaning the expiation of the debt - exists when the punishment has been satisfied. One hopes that the sinner also repents and that the punishment will lead to that result but punishment must be applied whether or not there is any hope of repentance.

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

JPII - Salvifici doloris
“… **punishment **has a meaning not only because it **serves *to ***repay the objective evil of the transgression with another evil, but first and foremost because it creates the possibility of rebuilding goodness in the subject who suffers.” Let’s go back to the definition of atonement: “to expiate”, and the definition of expiate is to extinguish the guilt incurred. It seems that for you atonement means repentance, and although that is the hoped for result, repentance does not repay the debt incurred by sin. As the above quote says, it is punishment that “serves to repay the objective evil of the transgression” whether or not the sinner repents. There can be no atonement without punishment (with some specific exceptions) but there can be atonement without repentance. No, atonement is what exists when the payment is made;

I gave you an American dictionary definition of ‘atone’, which you seem entirely unable to accept.
Viz:**
a·tone (-tn)
v. a·toned, a·ton·ing, a·tones
v.intr.

1. To make amends, as for a sin or fault: These crimes must be atoned for.
2. Archaic To agree.
   v.tr.
3. To expiate.
4. Archaic To conciliate; appease: “So heaven, atoned, shall dying Greece restore” Alexander Pope.
5. Obsolete To reconcile or harmonize.
   [Middle English atonen, to be reconciled, from at one, in agreement : at, at; see at1 + one, one; see one.]
   a·tona·ble, a·tonea·ble adj.
   a·toner n.***
   The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.*
   ‘Atonement’ is more than making ammends, it also involves reconciliation with the offendee. That requires by implication, repentance and forgiveness. By this implication, I can see that the DP will in some peoples’ theories allow the latter, as the offendor will then stand before the offendee in the Holy Presence. However, since the Holy Presence is outside of time, the DP is not required for that purpose, for the offendor will inevitably stand in that Presence.
   As for punishment, All dictionary definitions I see, mark this as causing someone to suffer, or indergo a penalty, (tautology here?), for some wrong doing.
   ‘Penalty’: punishment for crime or offence. Tautology indeed!
   So ‘punishment’ and ‘penalty’ are legal terms.
   They are concepts of LAW, not of JUSTICE. These two are not the same.
   ‘Punishment’ is part of the toolbox of training: The stick and the carrot.
   As I said, and said over, the LAW ends with punishment, because the LAW is imperfect. The LAW cannot always achieve atonement, so does not try.

it is punishment, not repentance, that is the payment. I have never said that punishment is an end in itself. I said that it is the means by which the debt of sin is repaid. Atonement - meaning the expiation of the debt - exists when the punishment has been satisfied. One hopes that the sinner also repents and that the punishment will lead to that result but punishment must be applied whether or not there is any hope of repentance.

Ender

As I said before, your position is one of LAW.
It is a perfectly reasonable position, but it has nothing whatever to do with JUSTICE.

 

[Sixtus]

Originally by Voco proTatiano)—
My position is strictly Gospel based.
—End Quote—
My position is strictly based on the teaching of the Church and this is really the source of the difference between us.

Amen

My position is also strictly Gospel based…on Her who wrote it and what she wrote…

It is a well known, researched and established fact that she was ‘doing worship’ that was handed down from the Apostles but which she chose [in her infinite wisdom] not to include in what she wrote.

If in doubt, look for my namesake on line Pope St Sixtus 1 who received his catechism of instruction from the very Disciples of the Blessed Apostles whom you DO believe…and are mentioned in the New Testament. .

You will also see that belief in the Real Presence was practiced from the very beginning, long before the New Testament was ever conceived of, let alone written.

Strange then that folk come along 2000-years later and say…‘I think it is wrong!’

 

[Clovis]

The psychology behind why people commit offenses is very important to me. I always look at things from the idea that either in this life or the next all will eventually become aware of their wrongs and the majority of their sufferings might very well come from sadness over what they’ve done. Many who commit crimes are impoverished and had far less to live for on the strait and narrow; but I don’t severely doubt the justice system after all, every nation has flaws in the system, and in reality the majority of the systems are created to deal with flaws themselves. I don’t believe in killing people, but you never know how many murders were avoided from fear of the death penalty. Law and Order is a very difficult and fascinating arena.

 

[Sixtus]

Ender posted:

‘Punishment’ is part of the toolbox of training: The stick and the carrot.
As I said, and said over, the LAW ends with punishment, because the LAW is imperfect. The LAW cannot always achieve atonement, so does not try.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

#110 - Let’s go back to the definition of atonement: “to expiate” …

Voco proTatiano:

#111 - I gave you an American dictionary definition of ‘atone’, which you seem entirely unable to accept.
Viz:**

1. To make amends, as for a sin or fault: These crimes must be atoned for.
2. Archaic To agree.
   v.tr.
3. To expiate.**

I explicitly used the definition you provided; what more can I do?

‘Atonement’ is more than making ammends, it also involves reconciliation with the offendee. That requires by implication, repentance and forgiveness.

Your dictionary definition equates atonement with making amends, period. There is no implication that repentance or forgiveness is part of the this definition … although they are obviously part of your definition.

So ‘punishment’ and ‘penalty’ are legal terms. They are concepts of LAW, not of JUSTICE. These two are not the same.

How can you continue to ignore the plain words of JPII when he states that punishment is part of justice? If you disagree with him say so.

“God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful ***justice ***that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good”

I am still waiting for you to quote a single Church document that supports your position. I am quite prepared to cite others beyond the half dozen I have already mentioned but you have ignored all the ones I’ve used so I don’t think more will do any good. Is there anyone I could quote you would believe? Augustine? Aquinas? The Church Fathers?

Ender

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

I explicitly used the definition you provided; what more can I do? Your dictionary definition equates atonement with making amends, period.

You failed to read on. It is obsolete now, but was not so in the times of KJV and Douay.
**
3. Obsolete To reconcile or harmonize.
[Middle English atonen, to be reconciled, from at one, in agreement : at, at; see at1 + one, one; see one.]
**
To be reconciled most definitely implies repentance and forgiveness. You do not see it, because you will not see it.

There is no implication that repentance or forgiveness is part of the this definition … although they are obviously part of your definition.
How can you continue to ignore the plain words of JPII when he states that punishment is part of justice? If you disagree with him say so.

"God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part

that is: a tool

of a merciful ***justice ***that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good"

That is: ATONEMENT

I am still waiting for you to quote a single Church document that supports your position. I am quite prepared to cite others beyond the half dozen I have already mentioned but you have ignored all the ones I’ve used so I don’t think more will do any good. Is there anyone I could quote you would believe? Augustine? Aquinas? The Church Fathers?

Ender

I do not need to produce documents, the very ones you produce, when read correctly make my points, not yours.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Punishment is clearly part of the teaching of the Church as a correct response to sin, particularly social sin, and while it is always hoped it will end in the eventual reformation of the criminal that hoped-for end need not justify its implementation.