By Church source you mean something other than the document written by the man who is our current pope? He identified it as prudential when he commented that *“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty.”
Forgive me if if my wording was poor. I am trying to reconcile the two sections of the Catechism. And when I do such, I read it as capital punishment should be practically non-existent. So, what punishment befits murder? Obviously not capital punishment every time.
Cardinal Ratzinger did not identify the teaching as “prudential” some people outside the main stream did that - not Ratzinger. As explained before the “diversity of opinion” exists because the teaching does ban the use of capital punishment. The teaching restricts the use of capital punishment. How restricted is it? that is where “diversity of opinion” exists. If you just read what Ratzinger said as opposed to the twisted and inserted opinions of others it really is simple…
This is certainly one point that ought to be debated but these discussions rarely make it that far. It is not clear what punishment would be more commensurate with murder than the execution of the sinner which is why I think there are times when the death penalty is not only appropriate but necessary.
Yes, I did. All of the quotes I use are from the original documents that I have read. I found them by searching for what has been written on this topic. I am well aware that the USCCB strongly supports the elimination of the death penalty and their document was an argument to accomplish that end, which makes it all the more significant that they felt compelled to add the point that they neither “judge nor condemn” but rather “seek to convince” those who disagree. Even Cardinal Dulles, who twice specifically referred to the teaching as prudential, agrees with the conclusion that the death penalty should not be used. The point is not that they disagreed with the teaching (which in fact none of them did) but that they recognized it as prudential.
Thank you for answering
This has been one of my complaints about these two sections (I guess we should be specific - I mean 2266 and 2267) because they cannot be reconciled. 2267 says capital punishment should not be used because it is not necessary to protect the public while 2266 speaks about the requirements of justice. Since 2267 ignores justice (the punishment must fit the crime) in prohibiting the death penalty it is not possible to reconcile the two passages because they don’t discuss the same points.
Clearly 2267 effectively prohibits capital punishment on the basis that it is not needed to protect society. All the past writings of the Church leave no doubt that the death of the murderer was appropriate (not in all cases, this is a general statement), but as to what punishment befits murder, 2267 does not answer that question because it does not even address it.
I have granted that the USCCB does not use the word prudential … nor optional, discretionary, elective or any of a number of possible synonyms … but I am at a loss as to how else to interpret the words they did use. If “we neither judge nor condemn” but “seek to convince” doesn’t mean that I am free to choose then they have led me into serious error. But how can I be in serious error if they do not condemn my choice? I cannot think of any true moral obligation about which they would say such a thing - which is why I believe that the acceptance of this teaching is not required of a Catholic of good faith.
I’m against the death penalty, however, … I seem to be okay with cruel and unusual punishment for these that commit terrible crimes.
The teaching allows execution when the innocent are in danger. So who decides when the standard is met? As some Catholics are quick to believe the standard is met, while others refuse to ever believe the standard is met that is a diversity of opinion. Neither group is violating Catholic teaching as long as they believe the standard is met. So which group can be omitted from communion? neither according to Ratzinger or the USCCB
The church teaches that INNOCENT life must be defended.
It sound very sad First there would be members calling for withholding the Eucharist from members who follow the catechism, Second there would be members possibly inserting implications into Ratzinger’s writing which are not there*, and third apparently the would be members discarding the catechism. All of this is very sad. Thank you for posting the information.
This was Post 79. No one here is saying the CCC is “prudential.” It is binding when it states something in a binding manner. The statement on the death penalty is not stated in such a way. It is left open to prudential judgments.Well, I’ll make an attempt here. The CCC says that capital punishment may be justified occasionally. That is NOT a prudential judgment, so I guess I’m saying “No” to the second question, if I understand the question correctly. However, figuring out when capital punishment may be justified would require prudential judgment, so I guess my answer to the first question (if I understand it correctly) would be “Yes.”
D’oh! BANNED! :doh2: I wonder if this is the same Prot Bull attacking the church under a different nom de guerre, or is actually different users? Brosam, RowBoat, et al. Maybe they are really Jack Chick?!?
This is doubly disingenuous. No one has claimed the catechism itself is prudential and evidence aplenty has been provided regarding the prudential nature of section 2267. That you reject the evidence is entirely different from saying that none has been provided.
I have little fear of being found in direct opposition to the Church as I have formed my opinion based on the recent statements of our pope, the USCCB, and Cardinal Dulles … not to mention the collected statements of every Church figure up until 1992. When I find myself in the company of Aquinas, Augustine, and 200 popes I’m content to take my chances.
This point is given way too little recognition. I think we are becoming uncomfortable with the concept of individual responsibility; that is, that sin is a personal failing and not a collective failure of society. This may be a natural consequence of the “It takes a village to raise a child” mentality where, if the child does something wrong, it is assumed that it is the village that has failed, not the child.
Maybe it should all come back to the words of Our Lord: “Let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Then He told the woman who escaped execution “Go now and sin no more.” As we choose execution we also choose to end a life - that might lead to great repentance and holiness. Specifically, I recall the killer of Maria Goretti (in Italy) who was not executed for his crime but instead lived on, to feel remorse, do penance and attend her canonization ceremony. What do we achieve when we (even as State), rather than God, appoint a time for death of another?
What do we achieve? Maybe a just state? Fewer murders? A more peaceful society?
:coffeeread: