So no, you're not simply disagreeing with a couple of popes, but rather with "the whole Episcopate of the Catholic Church" (the Magisterium), whose members collaborated on its completion, and sanctioned its promulgation.
Pointed noted. I have no comments one way or the other, except to say that I've noted your point.
Exceedingly weak point. You and I both know that retributive justice is not the same thing as hatred. Saying that such and such a man has done x, y and z, and the due merit for his crimes is death, and that to give death to such a person as the due reward for his crimes is a strict obligation of the State, is not to be motivated by hatred. Again, that's not hatred. That's retributive
justice, and justice, let us note, Cruciform, is a
virtue.
So, I'll ask you plainly:
I've presented a number of arguments. Do you have an answer to any of them?
I have yet to see anyone, Catholic or otherwise, adequately answer my argument, namely, that the death penalty is a strict obligation of retributive justice because certain classes of actions naturally call for such a punishment (and, let us note, Immanuel Kant agrees, though you shouldn't be persuaded by this one way or the other). A certain colleague of mine insists that the death penalty is unnecessary for the common good, but he refuses to demonstrate this or clarify his notion of the common good any further (insofar as I can understand him). When I insist that justice, and, thus, proportional equality, is a constituent part of the common good, he refuses to admit of any notion of justice which does not have reference to the common good. "But why," he will insist, "is
that the just penalty?" As though the answer were not adequately clear if we understand justice in terms of proportionate equality (generally speaking) and arithmetic proportion (in terms of retributive justice).
One article that I read went through different purposes of punishment. Rehabilation, retribution, etc. There were like five of them. The article didn't spend much time on retribution, but frankly, that's the only one that I'm interested in. Punishment is
per se retributive!
Literally the
only reason that someone should be punished
is because he or she deserves it!
And, let us note, all of these Catholics (and other misguided Christians) who insist on just how cruel the death penalty is and talk about how only the least cruel course of action should be taken (life in prison, if necessary, not death...if only death can be avoided)...what will these Catholics (and other misguided Christians) say in explanation of the
pains of the senses in Hell?
There is no hope of correction. They most certainly are not necessary to render the damned harmless. No, none of that. The only thing that can be said in defense of this, and let us call it what it is,
torture of the damned
is that they deserve it as the just penalty of their crimes.
And what will you say? Will you tell me that the State does not have the right to carry out justice here? Or does it not have the ability? But to say either seems ridiculous, doesn't it?
But you will tell me, perhaps, as I read in one article: "But so and so murdered so many people. We can only kill him once." Therefore, we should conclude from this, we shouldn't
even kill him once? Since we cannot carry out perfect justice, we should carry out an even
more imperfect justice than that of which we are capable? But again, phrased like that, that just sounds ridiculous, doesn't it?
.
