Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[vz71]

I’m not sure I follow. First, you tell me that the Catechism contradicts itself. Then, you say that the you do not see abolishment in the CCC, so it is clear that the Church doesn’t want it abolished.

I can see your confusion.
You quoted two different people and are now trying to respond as though a single voice had spoken both quotes.

Try reading the name with each post. It may help you to keep them straight.

 

[Ender]

For the death penalty, being “commensurate” is no longer enough.

What is the primary purpose of all punishment? What is the one criterion that must be satisfied in every single case in order for a punishment to be just?

It must redress the disorder caused by the sin and in order to do that it must be commensurate with the severity of the sin. What is being said in 2267, however, is that “commensurate” is not the overriding criterion if the only commensurate penalty is death; the overriding criterion in those cases is whatever is needed to protect society.

Where is the reasoning behind this? 2266 says the primary purpose is redressing the disorder but 2267 says the primary purpose it protecting society. It can’t be both: either 2266 holds in all cases or 2267 does … or both are wrong. There is no link between 2267 and anything the Church has said on the subject throughout her history - which is one reason I such a hard time accepting it.

Ender

 

[frankadams]

What is the primary purpose of all punishment? What is the one criterion that must be satisfied in every single case in order for a punishment to be just?

It must redress the disorder caused by the sin and in order to do that it must be commensurate with the severity of the sin. What is being said in 2267, however, is that “commensurate” is not the overriding criterion if the only commensurate penalty is death; the overriding criterion in those cases is whatever is needed to protect society.

Where is the reasoning behind this? 2266 says the primary purpose is redressing the disorder but 2267 says the primary purpose it protecting society. It can’t be both: either 2266 holds in all cases or 2267 does … or both are wrong. There is no link between 2267 and anything the Church has said on the subject throughout her history - which is one reason I such a hard time accepting it.

Ender

Thanks for your explanation. And sorry for attaching your quote to that of another poster who rebuked me with her usual Christian charity.

As stated previously, I see the CCC carving out an exception for 2266 in 2267, one that reflects a deeper Catholic understanding of the sanctity of all created human life. And, as stated, I think the Catholic theologians composing the Catechism are not likely to have made such a self-contradictory error in successive paragraphs.

The call of the Pope and all the national episcopal conferences that have commented on the subject to abolish the death penalty indicates that they see no contradiction in the CCC. But I do think that there is a lack of clarity between 2266 and 2267 that can *appear *self-contradictory.

 

[Ender]

I think the Catholic theologians composing the Catechism are not likely to have made such a self-contradictory error in successive paragraphs.

Right, this is a very rational position … but one which I just can’t bring myself to accept. Nothing I have read about the death penalty (which is actually a fair amount) shows me how to make sense of the (apparent) contradiction between 2266 and 2267 and until that happens I cannot accept 2267 as correct.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Nothing I have read about the death penalty … shows me how to make sense of the (apparent) contradiction between 2266 and 2267 …

I just finished this analysis of the Church’s position on the death penalty by E. Christian Brugger, an ethics professor at Loyola, and while he hasn’t answered my questions he does at least acknowledge that there are valid concerns that the Church has not yet resolved.

loyno.edu/twomey/blueprint/vol_lvii/No-01_Sep_2004.html#_ftnref28

*“A careful scrutiny of the **Catechism’s text in context will show that it is ****not **saying what the Catholic Church has always said about the morality of capital punishment, only in a new way. It is saying something new. It is saying, I will argue, that the act of capital punishment, conceived and executed for the purpose of killing a human being, is never legitimate.”

“we note at once that the **Catechism ties its analysis of the death penalty, not to a model of punishment **qua punishment, but strictly to a model of self-defense.”
*
This is the conflict between 2266 (old teaching) and 2267 (new teaching).

*“The conclusions I find in the Catechism’s account are not stated **explicitly in its text. The text rather lays the theoretical groundwork for a development of doctrine on the morality of capital punishment to be fully articulated at a later time. That doctrine would at minimum state that judicial killing, to the extent that it serves the purpose of retribution (i.e., to the extent that it aims to redress the disorder introduced by deliberate crime by intentionally killing the one responsible for the disorder – i.e., to the extent that it is **punishment), is wrong.” *

I certainly agree that something more needs to be said; the new teaching has to be developed, not simply articulated. My concern is that I am unable to see how it can be developed.

Ender

 

[vz71]

Thanks for your explanation. And sorry for attaching your quote to that of another poster who rebuked me with her usual Christian charity.

‘her’


Whatever gave you that idea?

 

[frankadams]

Right, this is a very rational position … but one which I just can’t bring myself to accept. Nothing I have read about the death penalty (which is actually a fair amount) shows me how to make sense of the (apparent) contradiction between 2266 and 2267 and until that happens I cannot accept 2267 as correct.

Ender

I just finished this analysis of the Church’s position on the death penalty by E. Christian Brugger, an ethics professor at Loyola, and while he hasn’t answered my questions he does at least acknowledge that there are valid concerns that the Church has not yet resolved.

I certainly agree that something more needs to be said; the new teaching has to be developed, not simply articulated. My concern is that I am unable to see how it can be developed.

Ender

Thank you for the link. At the end, he states his talk may end up simply raising more questions, and that it certainly does!

It would seem that we both want more from our Church in regards to this issue. Your difficulty with “development” makes logical sense, though I disagree with it.

Me? I’m still trying to figure out how papal encyclicals stating that religious freedom is evil can be reconciled with an ecumenical council stating that violating religious freedom is evil can be seen as a “development” rather than a refutation. But at least the documents and quotes I am struggling with are separated by a century. The quotes you are struggling with are separated by a single blank line.

The Church owes us more.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

Right, this is a very rational position … but one which I just can’t bring myself to accept.

Your difficulty with “development” makes logical sense, though I disagree with it.

I guess respect for a position we don’t personally agree with is as close to agreement as it’s possible to get. I can live with that.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

If you want to understand fully what the CCC means, here is an article by Cardinal Dulles, one of the theologians involved with the CCC.

What is also interesting is that Cardinal Dulles is not a bishop, but remains a priest. Pope John Paul II thought so highly of the theological ability of the man that he elevated him to the College as a simple priest.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

I don’t there any of us here have grounds to object to anything Cardinal Dulles wrote about.

Some of the high points

Some Catholics, going beyond the bishops and the Pope, maintain that the death penalty, like abortion and euthanasia, is a violation of the right to life and an unauthorized usurpation by human beings of God’s sole lordship over life and death.

Catholic authorities justify the right of the State to inflict capital punishment on the ground that the State does not act on its own authority but as the agent of God, who is supreme lord of life and death. In so holding they can properly appeal to Scripture. Paul holds that the ruler is God’s minister in executing God’s wrath against the evildoer (Romans 13:4). Peter admonishes Christians to be subject to emperors and governors, who have been sent by God to punish those who do wrong (1 Peter 2:13). Jesus, as already noted, apparently recognized that Pilate’s authority over his life came from God (John 19:11).

And finally, an encapsulation of the Church’s teaching

In a brief compass I have touched on numerous and complex problems. To indicate what I have tried to establish, I should like to propose, as a final summary, ten theses that encapsulate the Church’s doctrine, as I understand it.

The purpose of punishment in secular courts is fourfold: the rehabilitation of the criminal, the protection of society from the criminal, the deterrence of other potential criminals, and retributive justice.

-Just retribution, which seeks to establish the right order of things, should not be confused with vindictiveness, which is reprehensible.

-Punishment may and should be administered with respect and love for the person punished.

-The person who does evil may deserve death. According to the biblical accounts, God sometimes administers the penalty himself and sometimes directs others to do so.

-Individuals and private groups may not take it upon themselves to inflict death as a penalty.

-The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused.

-The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

-The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.

-Persons who specially represent the Church, such as clergy and religious, in view of their specific vocation, should abstain from pronouncing or executing the sentence of death.

-Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition.

 

[frankadams]

If you want to understand fully what the CCC means, here is an article by Cardinal Dulles, one of the theologians involved with the CCC.

If you want to understand fully what the CCC means, you might also want to look to the Vicar of Christ and Princes of the Church speaking through the dozens of episcopal conferences that have written on the subject.

They called for the death penalty to be abolished.

 

[SoCalRC]

If you want to understand fully what the CCC means, you might also want to look to the Vicar of Christ and Princes of the Church speaking through the dozens of episcopal conferences that have written on the subject.

They called for the death penalty to be abolished.

I would urge you to not rush to judgment on the article. It is, I would say, a clear and accurate overview of the history. Note the conclusion (just prior to the review in brief):

"The Catholic magisterium in recent years has become increasingly vocal in opposing the practice of capital punishment. Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae declared that “as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system,” cases in which the execution of the offender would be absolutely necessary “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” Again at St. Louis in January 1999 the Pope appealed for a consensus to end the death penalty on the ground that it was “both cruel and unnecessary.” The bishops of many countries have spoken to the same effect.

The United States bishops, for their part, had already declared in their majority statement of 1980 that “in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.” Since that time they have repeatedly intervened to ask for clemency in particular cases. Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position."

The Cardinal 1) repudiates the argument that the Bishops and the Pope are changing Church doctrine and 2) agrees with the Pope and the Bishops.

This leaves the debate - does “prudential” mean “optional”. The USCCB say no:

“29. The second “tempation in public life”] is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.”

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

And the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church says no:

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Ex Cathedra means ‘from the chair’, or papal infalliblity. So, even when the Pope is teaching prudentially, we are supposed to make a “religious submission of mind and will”. It even tells us how to know how important he considers a teaching. I’d say encyclical, catechism, the local catechism, repeated public statements, and books make the death penalty teaching pretty important.

 

[Brendan]

I would urge you to not rush to judgment on the article. It is, I would say, a clear and accurate overview of the history. Note the conclusion (just prior to the review in brief):

The Cardinal 1) repudiates the argument that the Bishops and the Pope are changing Church doctrine and 2) agrees with the Pope and the Bishops.

Correct, he correctly determines that the current Pope is not teaching anything has differs from what previous Popes have taught, such as Pope Innocent III

“The secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood, provided that it punishes with justice, not out of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation.”

And that Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the Right to Life apply only to INNOCENT life.

Which is, of course, in full accord with Pope Pius XII

Even when there is question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already dispossessed himself of his right to life.

This leaves the debate - does “prudential” mean “optional”. The USCCB say no:

That is quite correct, each use of the death penalty needs to be throughly examined.

But note that the Church, in what we can now agree is an unchanging history, states that the right to determine that belongs to the State,

usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

And the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church says no:

Correct, we MUST adhere to the Papal teaching that the State has the right to execute. Vatican II said so.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Ex Cathedra means ‘from the chair’, or papal infalliblity. So, even when the Pope is teaching prudentially, we are supposed to make a “religious submission of mind and will”. It even tells us how to know how important he considers a teaching. I’d say encyclical, catechism, the local catechism, repeated public statements, and books make the death penalty teaching pretty important.

See above

Oh yeah, and since we agree that the Churches teachings have not changed, here is the Council of Trent on the subject.

I’m sure we will all agree to this as well.

On the 5th Commandment

Execution Of Criminals

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

The end goal of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

 

[SoCalRC]

Popes have taught, such as Pope Innocent III…

Pope Innocent III also declared that the abortion of a fetus that had not yet taken human form is not murder. But that would be a red herring. I will note only that the Church does not teach that applications of the death penalty cannot be licit now, it just has determined that the balance of conflicting obligations is best met predominantly without it today.

And that Pope John Paul II’s teaching on the Right to Life apply only to INNOCENT life.

That is quite false. In CHRISTFIDELES LAICI, as well as EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II made it clear that the right to life is absolute, in “every stage” and “every condition”.

Which is, of course, in full accord with Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII, like John Paul II, argued that the right to life cannot be abridged by anyone, not even the state:

“Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life…” - Pope Pius XII

The condemned forces the state to exercise its need to protect. The state cannot rightfully take what is given by God.

Oh yeah, and since we agree that the Churches teachings have not changed, here is the Council of Trent on the subject.

Look at your quote. The state’s actions are licit, not because of a right to punish or achieve retribution, but because:

“The end goal of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life.”

This is reiterated in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

“The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment “Thy shall not kill”], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.” - Catechism of the Council of Trent

This is fully compatible with CCC 2267 and Evangelium Vitae. The law is best fullfilled when we best “protect and foster human life”.

“But note that the Church, in what we can now agree is an unchanging history, states that the right to determine that belongs to the State.”

No. For Catholics, the ultimate authority on faith and morals is the Pope. For Catholics, this is beyond dispute:

“If anyone should say that the Roman Pontiff has merely the function of inspection or direction but not full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in matters pertaining to faith and morals, but also in matters pertaining to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world, or that he has only the principal share, but not the full plenitutde of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate over all Churches and over each individual Church, over all shepherds and all the faithful, and over each individual one of these: let him be anathema” - Vatican Council I, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ, #3

Excommunication is separation of the Body of the Faithful, anathema is separation from the Body of Christ.

The Church may specifically delegate final moral judgements for certain teachings. For example, it currently does this for the basic criteria of Just War (CCC 2309) and the refusal of medical treatment (CCC 2278). But these delegations are not “rights” because it is impossible to abridge the moral authority of the Vicar of Christ.

Besides, where is the “right”? Centuries ago the Council of Trent noted that the death penalty was licit because it was in keeping with the “purpose of the law”. Half a century ago Pope Pius XII argued that life is a right that the state cannot licitly take! The condemned were excecuted because, again, the state was keeping to the “prinicple of life”.

The Church is not claiming that the death penalty is never licit, it is simply proclaiming that we are currently not using it appropriately. This is a moral judgement on the proper application of Church doctrine. Protestants can pick and choose and come to their own conclussions, but Catholics proclaim a Holy and apostolic Church as an undisputed belief each week (Nicene Creed).

 

[Brendan]

Pope Innocent III also declared that the abortion of a fetus that had not yet taken human form is not murder. But that would be a red herring.

He correctly noted that it is a sin distinct from murder and carries it’s own penalties. That is exactly what the Church teaches today, abortion carried an automatic excommunication in addition to being mortally sinful. So why bother bringing it up? Did you think that Pope Innocent did not think abortion was gravely sinful, or that is was LESS sinful that murder? ( he, like Aquinas considered it graver)

I will note only that the Church does not teach that applications of the death penalty cannot be licit now, it just has determined that the balance of conflicting obligations is best met predominantly without it today.

Which I agree, predominatly, but not completely.

That is quite false. In CHRISTFIDELES LAICI, as well as EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II made it clear that the right to life is absolute, in “every stage” and “every condition”.

The Right to Life is, but he, as did Pope Pius, recognized that the criminal forfieted the right to life upon commision of the crime.

Pope Pius XII, like John Paul II, argued that the right to life cannot be abridged by anyone, not even the state:

Correct, the State does not deny anyone the Right to Life when it executes them, they had already done that to themselves.

The condemned forces the state to exercise its need to protect. The state cannot rightfully take what is given by God.

But note that Cardinal Dulles, as did Cardinal Bernadine and all the Church, especially in the Council of Trent, note that when the State DOES execute the criminal, it does so as God’s agent.

Look at your quote. The state’s actions are licit, not because of a right to punish or achieve retribution, but because:

That is correct, it is necessary to execute the criminal to preserve life.

Note the line directly below the one you bolded. It tell HOW to preserve life

For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives."

This is fully compatible with CCC 2267 and Evangelium Vitae. The law is best fullfilled when we best “protect and foster human life”.

No. For Catholics, the ultimate authority on faith and morals is the Pope. For Catholics, this is beyond dispute:

Excommunication is separation of the Body of the Faithful, anathema is separation from the Body of Christ.

The Church may specifically delegate final moral judgements for certain teachings. For example, it currently does this for the basic criteria of Just War (CCC 2309) and the refusal of medical treatment (CCC 2278). But these delegations are not “rights” because it is impossible to abridge the moral authority of the Vicar of Christ.

Besides, where is the “right”?

Here in Trent

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death

Centuries ago the Council of Trent noted that the death penalty was licit because it was in keeping with the “purpose of the law”. Half a century ago Pope Pius XII argued that life is a right that the state cannot licitly take! The condemned were excecuted because, again, the state was keeping to the “prinicple of life”.

Correct, and both noted that executing criminals was neither a deprevation of the right to life, and it was actually in keeping with the right to life.

Do you disagree with Trent or Pope Pius in their assessment?

The Church is not claiming that the death penalty is never licit, it is simply proclaiming that we are currently not using it appropriately.

It set out the criteria, but also removed the clergy from making the detrmination ( St. Ireanus, Augustine, Aquinas and Trent)

This is a moral judgement on the proper application of Church doctrine. Protestants can pick and choose and come to their own conclussions, but Catholics proclaim a Holy and apostolic Church as an undisputed belief each week (Nicene Creed).

Correct, the Church has ruled that

1. The State may licitly do it
2. If the accused has been determined to be guilty
3. If other means are not sufficent

The State is the one who determines 2 and 3 however, clergy cannot.

2 and 3 are also not moral judgements, but prudential judgements given to the State. The Church is not the Judge and Jury, therefore they cannot claim to determine #2

And they are not the Jailer, the Church cannot claim to be the determiner of #3 either.

 

[pnewton]

If you want to understand fully what the CCC means, you might also want to look to the Vicar of Christ and Princes of the Church speaking through the dozens of episcopal conferences that have written on the subject.

They called for the death penalty to be abolished.

FYI, not all cardinals agree as to the way the death penalty should be used in specific situations and episcopal councils have no canonical authority to change doctrine.

 

[pnewton]

I am one of those who supports the death penalty, fully aware that the Pope and the bishops oppose it, because I believe that their opposition is based not on the belief that it is immoral but on their perception that it unwise and does more harm than good.

I will add that everything I have read so far also indicates that their opposition is rooted in the belief that that we can safely incarcerate anyone in our advanced society. I have yet to find the first footnote or reference as to where this myth came from. CNN perhaps?

Check the catechism where “rare if practically non-existent” is found. Is there a footnote? No. If any actual research or study has been done by the Vatican on this, they are silent on the subject.

 

[SoCalRC]

( he, like Aquinas considered it graver)

Actually, that is also false. You might be confusing him with St. Jerome. Innocent III held it to be a lesser sin (the written penitentials put punishment for abortion at 120 days, oral sex at 10 years).

But more importantly, it appears we are not having a disucssion of reason, but of pseudo certainty. Let’s back up.

You cited an article from a Cardinal whose theological credentials you stressed. I went to the article and quoted the Cardinals conclussions, namely:

1. Current Catholic teaching from the Pope and Bishops, and contained in the Catechism, are not a deviation from past Catholic teaching.
2. The Pope and Bishops are making a prudential teaching regarding the proper balance of moral imperitives for Catholics.
3. The Cardinal, himself, agrees.

If you reject two or more of these conclussions, why on earth did you cite the article?

Also, please refrain from attacking my obedience to the Church on the basis of personal interpretation of past Church documents. My position is in perfect sync with EVANGELIUM VITAE, my local Catechism (UNITED STATES CATHOLIC CATECHISM FOR ADULTS), the universal Catechism, the public statements of the USCCB, the written position of the Cardinal overseeing my archdiocese, and the written position of my Bishop.

Once we have established why you cited an article you disagree so strenously with, we can walk through your various arguments and determine why you either consider yourself a better interpretter of Church doctirne and/or why you do not consider prudential teachings of the pope and bishops binding on you.

You might also consider trying the “preview” feature, your problems with formatting make your arguments somewhat hard to follow.

 

[Ender]

I went to the article and quoted the Cardinals conclussions, namely:

1. Current Catholic teaching from the Pope and Bishops, and contained in the Catechism, are not a deviation from past Catholic teaching.

It is true that the teaching on the right of the state to execute criminals (in principle) is not changed. What is new is tying capital punishment to the concept of the defense of society rather than retribution (to which all other punishments are associated), followed by the unsubstantiated claim that society is well protected without it - which in practice abridges the right so severely as to virtually eliminate it.

1. The Pope and Bishops are making a prudential teaching regarding the proper balance of moral imperitives for Catholics.

No argument here: the new position is the prudential opinion of JPII.

1. The Cardinal, himself, agrees.

True. Not relevant to the argument, but true.

we can walk through your various arguments and determine why you either consider yourself a better interpretter of Church doctirne …

There has been no interpretation whatever of how this new guideline proceeds from Church doctrine. It has been promulgated; it has not been explained. Since the Church has provided no interpretation we are left to do it by ourselves.

… and/or why you do not consider prudential teachings of the pope and bishops binding on you.

Because opinions, even those of popes and bishops, do not rise to the level of ordinary teachings and thus do not require assent.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

It is true that the teaching on the right of the state to execute criminals (in principle) is not changed. What is new

Fine, so you are disagreeing with Cardinal Dulles’ interpretation, as well as Pope Pope John Paul II, who saw fit the change the Catechism, and the Cardinals of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation of the Clergy, who found them licit (they signed on under their official religious capacities).

And, of course, it is disagreement with the US bishops, who saw fit to include it in the local Catechism (which, again, was approved by the CDF and the CC as licit Catholic teaching).

So is your argument that proper apostlic succession has been breached? That is, are you arguing that it is no longer one Holy, Catholic, and apostolic church?

 

[Ender]

Fine, so you are disagreeing with Cardinal Dulles’ interpretation …

This is disingenuous; I thought my explanation was clear enough.

… as well as Pope Pope John Paul II, who saw fit the change the Catechism, and the Cardinals of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation of the Clergy, who found them licit (they signed on under their official religious capacities).

After all this time you’re just now realizing that I’ve been disagreeing with 2267?

And, of course, it is disagreement with the US bishops, who saw fit to include it in the local Catechism (which, again, was approved by the CDF and the CC as licit Catholic teaching).

They have their opinions and I have mine. Fortunately for my position I oppose only the opinions of the bishops and not an ordinary teaching of the Church.

So is your argument that proper apostlic succession has been breached? That is, are you arguing that it is no longer one Holy, Catholic, and apostolic church?

Surely you realize this is not so. I can’t take this comment seriously.

Ender