L
lisahiku
Guest
The catholic church does not condemn the death penalty. It does not LOVE it, but it allows the decision to be left up to the states to protect society.
FACT.
FACT.
Ahead of inmate’s execution, Florida Catholic bishops seek clemency
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
I addressed five different aspects of their letter in post #11 and rather than repeat that post I’ll readdress just one of their comments. (These were comments from the article surrounding the publication of the letter.)
***They referred to the biblical murderer Cain and noted that God punished him, but also marked him to protect him from those wishing to avenge Abel’s murder.
***Based on what I have found, from a reasonably extensive but by no means exhaustive search, the Church has never used that passage in the context of capital punishment. That is, there is no basis for the bishops to interpret that passage as they did since it is not apparent that the Church has ever understood it that way. I can say with certainty that neither JPII in Evangelium Vitae #56 nor section 2267 in the Catechism refer to those passages in support of their statements on capital punishment. The only reference they contain … is to each other.
Ender
L
louis91766
Guest
Your argument is with the bishops of the Catholic Church, not with me.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
Actually, I am American. I just live in Australia at this time. I’ve lived in a number of places, some of which practiced corporal punishment as well as capital punishment; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Iran under the Shah.
No bishops’ conference of any country has the authority to declare doctrine. Their pronouncements do not have to be believed under pain of mortal sin. We may, in good conscience, disagree with them. In this case, we both have the respect for human life at the forefront of our concerns. We disagree as to how that might best be fostered in society.
The Church cannot, for 2,000 years declare that the death penalty for certain crimes is acceptable and now say that it is not. It doesn’t matter which doctrine is being changed, just that something that was taught as Truth for the last 2,000 years cannot suddenly be not-Truth. It would mean that Christ has not protected His Church from teaching error and that the whole religion thing is a myth.
The only other option is that some bishops have got it wrong, I think, with the very best of intentions. However,
It is their opinion that the death penalty fosters disrespect for human life. My opinion, and that of many others, is that the lack of a death penalty fosters disrespect for human life. The only lives being respected are the lives of murderers. If they kept murderers in prison for the rest of their lives it would be one thing, but they do not. Killers are released all the time and they kill again. The lives of victims, potential victims and victims families have no worth whatsoever but that’s ok cause we ‘respect’ the lives of murderers.
How long before we hear about these kids being murdered? We must give her the benefit of the doubt and leave these children at risk. There is no respect for these children’s lives or the authorities would err on the side of caution and keep her locked up. (not even talking death penalty here. just another example of how the incarceration of killers and their subsequent release is ineffective at protecting society)
Judge: Kids Can Live With Child-Killer, For Now
L
louis91766
Guest
So you disagree with the official teaching of the Catholic bishops in Florida?
L
louis91766
Guest
"The Church’s commitment to the value and dignity of human life leads us to oppose the use of the death penalty. We believe that a return to the use of the death penalty is further eroding respect for life in our society. We do not question society’s right to protect itself, but we believe that there are better approaches to protecting our people from violent crimes. The application of the death penalty has been discriminatory toward the poor, the indigent, and racial minorities. Our society should reject the death penalty and seek methods of dealing with violent crime that are more consistent with the gospel visions of respect for life and Christ’s message of healing love. This principle is set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”
(Community and Crime, 1978; U.S. Bishops’ Statement on Capital Punishment, 1980; Confronting a Culture of Violence, 1995.)
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
The State Catholic Bishop’s Conference of Florida cannot issue an official Teaching.
L
louis91766
Guest
It is not just from Florida. See U.S. Bishops’ Statement on Capital Punishment, 1980
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
It still isn’t a doctrinal statement binding on all Catholics on pain of sin.
No Bishop’s conference anywhere, state or national, may issue official Teachings except as detailed below.
This man has received due process of law. He had an impartial trial with legal representation. He has had numerous appeals in which the circumstances of the crime were revisited and the death penalty was upheld. These actions, imho, constitute respect for his life and executing him was administering justice, something that seems to be unimportant these days.
H
Hastrman
Guest
It always boggles my mind how people cite the bishops as if they’re identical with the teaching Magisterium.
I think the proper caution about the bishops is illustrated by a little anecdote. Supposedly, when Napoleon was trying to get the Vatican to concede to him (I forget on what), he said, “I will destroy the Church in France!”
And the papal nuncio replied, “If the French bishops didn’t manage to destroy it, what chance do you have?”
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Are the historic ‘teachings’ on the death penalty doctrinal, or dogma? Or, are they teachings like indulgences, which did require a correction/change?
H
Hastrman
Guest
The teaching on indulgences is precisely the same now as it was in the Renaissance. People abused the concept to engage in simony, but the teaching was not erroneous.
And the teachings on the death penalty, similarly, are the same as they have ever been: it is wrong to execute unnecessarily (it important to have the Chair of Peter offering these insights, don’t you agree?
). Recently church leadership has said that it probably isn’t necessary, but they don’t actually have any authority about that, since it’s a matter of “what are the conditions in a given country?”. The current Pope has actually out-and-out said that whether to use it or not is a matter of prudential judgment (his predecessor was remarkably less clear about that).
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Abused is the same as requiring a ‘change’.The teaching on indulgences is precisely the same now as it was in the Renaissance. People abused the concept to engage in simony, but the teaching was not erroneous.
And the teachings on the death penalty, similarly, are the same as they have ever been: it is wrong to execute unnecessarily (it important to have the Chair of Peter offering these insights, don’t you agree?
H
Hastrman
Guest
But the doctrine was never changed. If a priest charges people before he’ll hear their confessions, the teaching on the sacrament does not need to be changed, the priest needs to be disciplined.
Similarly, making large donations to the Church or to charity is, and was, an occasion to receive an indulgence. But certain churchmen basically began treating it as a purely business transaction, which is where the abuse comes in.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
And didn’t the abuse of indulgences reach the highest office of the Church’s knowledge?
I think the teaching of the death penalty was not doctrinal, as it does not apply to faith morals but is secular instead, which means there’s no conflict for the teaching to change.
E
Ender
Guest
Interesting position, but if it isn’t doctrinal then we have no obligation to assent to it no matter what the position is. If it isn’t doctrine then it’s merely opinion. On the other hand, there is good reason to believe the teaching is doctrine.
*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. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Does the Church leave us to decide for ourselves if it is correct or not? If we are allowed to disagree on the subject, it cannot be doctrine.
The magisterium has not changed, Pope John Paul II said it was not necessary in all cases and if it were it was very rare to the extent of being non-existent. This is where our disagreement is. Pro death penalty proponents seem to generalize the need for all condemned, while others, including Pope John Paul II and the bishops in Florida, find cause to revisit the need for everyone condemned. Does this man have support of a great number of people to break him out so that he can inflict harm upon a large number of society; like Saddam could have? (I’m not saying Saddam deserved the death penalty, I’m only trying to give an example of how it might be viewed as a genuine threat to society at large.) There had to be reasons in Pope John Paul’s mind to make a conflicting statement, as perceived differently by the ‘flock’.
H
Hastrman
Guest
You are misunderstanding. The doctrinal portion is “it’s wrong to execute unnecessarily”—which isn’t really the sort of thing you need the Holy Spirit and the Chair of Peter to know about, absolutely every society that has ever existed would agree. Now, since it is phrased in those terms, it is obviously not a religious question—the Pope has no authority to rule—on whether it is actually unnecessary for a particular community. His opinion that it is not should bear some weight, because he is the Pope, but since it is not actually, directly a matter of faith and morals (but rather of the situation they are to be applied to), he cannot command the assent of Catholics. And, to his credit, he has never really tried to.
Essentially what we have here is one political faction (death-penalty opponents) attempting to use the authority of the Pope to silence the other one (death-penalty supporters), just as—I take a personal example—the Austro-Hungarian Empire used the Pope’s authority to silence my great-grandfather and others agitating for the independence of Bohemia (the modern Czech Republic).
E
Ender
Guest
We are not allowed to disagree on what the doctrine is. We are allowed to disagree about how it applies it in concrete circumstances. That is, we may not disagree on whether the Church permits capital punishment (she does) but we may disagree on whether it should be used in a specific case, such as the one in Florida.
True, but as this claim is not doctrine but rather his prudential opinion, we are not obligated to agree with it.
Ender
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I disagree with your second paragraph. We are discussing the necessity of all executions, in light of John Paul II’s statements and the current bishops in Florida calling for clemency. What stands out in this particular case that endangers society in such a way as to not be one of the very rare, if not non-existent, cases as John Paul identified the necessity, as opposed to commuting the sentence to life in prison allowing the conformity of human dignity as John Paul also identified by referring to the Catechism?
- Status