Purple had a bad experience and therefore is more emotionally invested in this topic than other people.
The fundamental catholic conception of punishment as more to do with the reestablishment of natural order. The order established by God. It´s an ethical reaction to evil. The primary goal of law is to reestablish what was perturbed. To correct what was wronged. Only when law can´t reestablish what existed before. There´s monetary payments. But that´s not the primary purpose. The primary purpose is to maintain and recoup the natural order. A person wronged should be after law acts be put in the same condition she was before the violation. Sometimes that´s not possible so the violator has to pay has a second possibility.
You cant ressuscitate Kirk in order to restablish the order which existed before. so yeah. His widow and society will have to suffice with the jail of the shooter (if he was the shooter) and monetary compensation. Unfortunately that´s the best option available to restore natural order. His widow wishes are irrelevant. It´s God who decides. God order needs to be restablished.
"Pius XII stated that "punishment is the reaction, demanded by law and justice, to fault: it is like a blow and a counterblow. The order violated by the culpable act demands reintegration and restoration of the disturbed balance. Punishment itself can therefore have no other meaning and objective than to bring back to the order of duty the violator of the right, who had emerged from it. This order of duty is necessarily an expression of the order of being, the order of the true and the good, which alone has the right to exist, in opposition to error and evil, which represent that which should not be." This same retributive dogma had already been announced by St. Thomas Aquinas in these terms: "Anyone who rises against the order of things must expect repression from that same order (...) hence the threefold punishment that the sinner incurs: one that comes from himself, remorse; another from men; a third from God." And Michel Anquestil states, along these lines: "The mechanism of punishment derives from the principle of reaction: in the domain of nature, as in the domain of culture, all beings react to one another, and each order of reality defends itself in particular against all aggression, against every act that tends to destroy it."
The concept of retribution in law is not so much to make a vengeance. Actually it´s said that criminal law starts where vengeance ends. The idea of having retribution is to make an equivalent between the crime and punishment. If you commit libel you shouldn´t be sentenced to death.
When the shooter killed Kirk he disturbed the balance of society. And society needs him to be punished for the balance to be restored.
Kirk widow can forgive the shooter. But society/nature cannot tolerate such actions. Because doing so would mean agreeing on the violation of God established order.
DEUS VULT!
The fundamental catholic conception of punishment as more to do with the reestablishment of natural order. The order established by God. It´s an ethical reaction to evil. The primary goal of law is to reestablish what was perturbed. To correct what was wronged. Only when law can´t reestablish what existed before. There´s monetary payments. But that´s not the primary purpose. The primary purpose is to maintain and recoup the natural order. A person wronged should be after law acts be put in the same condition she was before the violation. Sometimes that´s not possible so the violator has to pay has a second possibility.
You cant ressuscitate Kirk in order to restablish the order which existed before. so yeah. His widow and society will have to suffice with the jail of the shooter (if he was the shooter) and monetary compensation. Unfortunately that´s the best option available to restore natural order. His widow wishes are irrelevant. It´s God who decides. God order needs to be restablished.
"Pius XII stated that "punishment is the reaction, demanded by law and justice, to fault: it is like a blow and a counterblow. The order violated by the culpable act demands reintegration and restoration of the disturbed balance. Punishment itself can therefore have no other meaning and objective than to bring back to the order of duty the violator of the right, who had emerged from it. This order of duty is necessarily an expression of the order of being, the order of the true and the good, which alone has the right to exist, in opposition to error and evil, which represent that which should not be." This same retributive dogma had already been announced by St. Thomas Aquinas in these terms: "Anyone who rises against the order of things must expect repression from that same order (...) hence the threefold punishment that the sinner incurs: one that comes from himself, remorse; another from men; a third from God." And Michel Anquestil states, along these lines: "The mechanism of punishment derives from the principle of reaction: in the domain of nature, as in the domain of culture, all beings react to one another, and each order of reality defends itself in particular against all aggression, against every act that tends to destroy it."
The concept of retribution in law is not so much to make a vengeance. Actually it´s said that criminal law starts where vengeance ends. The idea of having retribution is to make an equivalent between the crime and punishment. If you commit libel you shouldn´t be sentenced to death.
When the shooter killed Kirk he disturbed the balance of society. And society needs him to be punished for the balance to be restored.
Kirk widow can forgive the shooter. But society/nature cannot tolerate such actions. Because doing so would mean agreeing on the violation of God established order.
DEUS VULT!
Last edited:
