Ahead of inmate’s execution, Florida Catholic bishops seek clemency

[Ender]

It also presents us with the sacredness of life and the need to withhold on the use of capital punishment to impress upon the world the message that life is sacred and that human beings, even criminals, have dignity.

I can agree with this but I think you misinterpret JPII’s position. He is opposing capital punishment not because it is an affront to man’s dignity but because it appears that way to others. It is the perception, not the fact, that he is addressing. If it were otherwise there would be no answer to the question Irenaeus1 asked as to why it took the Church 2000 years to discover that capital punishment was incompatible with man’s dignity.

“We have to go to the heart of the tragedy being experienced by modern man: the eclipse of the sense of God and of man, typical of a social and cultural climate dominated by secularism … when the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life…” (EV #21)

The Magisterium says that it is difficult to be credible in our defense of the sacredness of life and the protection of human dignity while at the same time promoting the use of the death penalty when other means are available to satisfy justice and protect innocent lives.

You’ve slipped something in here that doesn’t belong. There has been nothing said that addresses whether there are other means available to satisfy justice. That point is simply ignored.

The Church feels that at some point she must take a stand in defense of life and at this point, she is unwilling to concede any margin to the state, because the state is dangerous.

I reject this outright. There is nothing whatever to support this contention.

While so many Catholics are busy questioning the prudential judgments of the Church, we are ignoring the state.

Every thread is about a single topic. This one happens to be about capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Rascalking]

I think this thread should be closed. We’ve all stated our views, we all know where we disagree. What’s the point in going foward?

 

[irenaeus1]

The Church has not changed its teaching on anything at all?
But we have seen changes in the teaching in the following areas:
Should heretics be burned at the stake.
Slavery.
Charging of interest on loans
Should women wear headcovering in Church
Can a marriage be annulled because of a slight defect in consent which was not apparent for 20 years.
Can a Jew be saved.
Altar girls and women saying the Communion service.

Talk about speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth… first you state that the Church has not changed its teaching on anything at all. Then you provide examples of where the Church has changed its teachings.

But for the sake of argument, either assuming you misspoke or that you know the difference between the Churchs official magisterial teaching and that of disciplinary matters, or perhaps whether it’s actually understood what the Church actually taught to begin with.

Should heretics be burned at the stake. Point to a Church document or official catechism that states this as official Church teaching
Slavery. Depends on how you define slavery - could start another thread to discuss
Charging of interest on loans Depends on how you define interest, barter system, etc. Recall that the Jews taught that usury was wrong as well, but yet were alloed to charge interest against a foreigner. Also, Jesus used the idea of interest in a parable, so we need to define our terms… could start another thread
Should women wear headcovering in Church Disciplinary, although Canon Law appears not to have abrogated this discipline… could start another thread
Can a marriage be annulled because of a slight defect in consent which was not apparent for 20 years. Marriage tribunals are not infallible, and I would guess there are many adulterous relationships posing as ‘second’ marriages… could start another thread
Can a Jew be saved. Church teaching is the same here… could start another thread
Altar girls and women saying the Communion service Disciplinary, although I haven’t studied this subject much… could start another thread

 

[louis91766]

Talk about speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth… first you state that the Church has not changed its teaching on anything at all. Then you provide examples of where the Church has changed its teachings.

But for the sake of argument, either assuming you misspoke or that you know the difference between the Churchs official magisterial teaching and that of disciplinary matters, or perhaps whether it’s actually understood what the Church actually taught to begin with.

Should heretics be burned at the stake. Point to a Church document or official catechism that states this as official Church teaching

The Papal Bull, ‘Exsurge Domine,’ of Jun 15, 1520, condemned the errors of Martin Luther and his followers. In this Bull, Pope Leo X condemns the following teaching:

#33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

 

[Ender]

The Papal Bull, ‘Exsurge Domine,’ of Jun 15, 1520, condemned the errors of Martin Luther and his followers. In this Bull, Pope Leo X condemns the following teaching:

#33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

In 1210, as a condition for being readmitted to the Church, Pope Innocent III required the Waldensians to sign a document renouncing some of their beliefs. Among these was the belief that capital punishment was immoral and the document they signed contained this statement:

*“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly” *

What is significant about both this statement and the one you cited is that neither one of them says that someone must be executed, only that they may be. Saying that something is permitted is not at all the same as saying it is required.

Ender

 

[irenaeus1]

The Papal Bull, ‘Exsurge Domine,’ of Jun 15, 1520, condemned the errors of Martin Luther and his followers. In this Bull, Pope Leo X condemns the following teaching:

#33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit

Now, do you know why this statement was condemned?

 

[louis91766]

Now, do you know why this statement was condemned?

Yes. Because it was a confirmation of what theologians had been saying and writing and what had been done in many cases already with Church approval: Namely that the Church approved the burning of heretics at the stake.
Of course, since then the teaching has changed and the Catholic Church no longer approves of burning heretics at the stake as it did in the past.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why is it some argue the ‘state’ is incapable when it pertains to social programs and then argue in support of the state’s rights in reference to the death penalty?

 

[Ender]

Why is it some argue the ‘state’ is incapable when it pertains to social programs and then argue in support of the state’s rights in reference to the death penalty?

Regarding social programs, the Church espouses the principle of subsidiarity, which can be debated regarding the application of a particular program. Regarding a State’s right to employ capital punishment, the Church has been both clear and consistent: the State has that right. It is not an argument that “we” make, it is a statement the Church has made. It is part of Church doctrine.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Regarding social programs, the Church espouses the principle of subsidiarity, which can be debated regarding the application of a particular program. Regarding a State’s right to employ capital punishment, the Church has been both clear and consistent: the State has that right. It is not an argument that “we” make, it is a statement the Church has made. It is part of Church doctrine.

Ender

But I’ve seen others on these forums say the state is incapable, when it comes to social programs, then on this subject the state is above being incapable. The Pope has spoken on both subjects and calls on ‘nations’ to prioritize universal healthcare and for the common good of all when making economic decisions. We know that he has spoken in favor of the abolition of the death penalty.

 

[SamH]

But I’ve seen others on these forums say the state is incapable, when it comes to social programs, then on this subject the state is above being incapable. The Pope has spoken on both subjects and calls on ‘nations’ to prioritize universal healthcare and for the common good of all when making economic decisions. We know that he has spoken in favor of the abolition of the death penalty.

Just as I 've seen you post that giving money to the state to operate social programs is akin to Godliness and Christian Charity.

So which is it?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just as I 've seen you post that giving money to the state to operate social programs is akin to Godliness and Christian Charity.

So which is it?

It can be, but only Christ can see the reasons in our hearts.

 

[Ender]

The Pope has spoken on both subjects and calls on ‘nations’ to prioritize universal healthcare

Show me.

Ender

 

[FLGreg]

I know there has been many previous pages devoted to this topic since I last posted here. I’m sorry that I haven’t read all of it. However, I have been in prayer regarding this.

The Catholic Church teaches that the only legitimate defense to taking another’s life is 1) the preservation of one’s own life and 2) the killing of an aggressor.

The preservation of one’s own life is self-explanatory so there is no need to discuss that further.

The killing of an aggressor is a hotly debated issue. An unjust aggressor needs to be rendered unable to cause future harm.

However, the Church teaches that a legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

It’s all very confusing. The way I see it is once that aggressor is in custody and behinds bars, he/she ceases to be an attacker and unable to cause future harm.

However, until I am told otherwise, I will:

1. Kill anyone who threatens me, my family or anyone around me.
2. Default to the Gospel of Mark, Chapter 12, Verse 17

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Show me.

Ender

Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people

“Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions,” he said, cautioning that protecting human health does not include euthanasia or promoting artificial reproductive techniques that include the destruction of embryos.

Care for human life from conception to its natural end must be a guiding light in determining health care policy, the pope said.

In his own written statement, Cardinal Bertone had strong words in support of the need for governments to take care of all citizens, especially children, the elderly, the poor and immigrants.

“Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” he said, adding that the provision of minimal levels of medical attention to all is “commonly accepted as a fundamental human right.”

Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing, the cardinal said.

 

[Ender]

Pope, church leaders call for guaranteed health care for all people

This is what BXVI said: * “Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions.” *The citation you provided is the lede from the article in which the pope’s comments were cited … but they don’t say the same thing. Here are additional quotes from that same article and as you can see they are very general in nature. They speak to the ends toward which we should strive but do not in any way address the means that should be used to achieve those ends.

• It is necessary to work with greater commitment at all levels so that the right to health is rendered effective*

*Health justice should be among the priorities of governments and international institutions. *

• "I hope for …] the adoption of a model of development founded on the centrality of the human being, on the promotion and sharing of the common good,*

zenit.org/article-31001?l=english

This just reinforces the point I have been making about the Church and political issues: the Church does not specify the means. She provides goals, not models. We may support or oppose Obamacare or any other form of health plan based on how we think it will work and the same is true of any other political issue … e.g. immigration. “The Church” has not called on us to reform our health care system in any particular way; there is no obligation to provide European style government health care. She would surely like to see a better system but she does not even suggest how we might achieve one.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is what BXVI said: * “Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions.” *The citation you provided is the lede from the article in which the pope’s comments were cited … but they don’t say the same thing. Here are additional quotes from that same article and as you can see they are very general in nature. They speak to the ends toward which we should strive but do not in any way address the means that should be used to achieve those ends.

• It is necessary to work with greater commitment at all levels so that the right to health is rendered effective*

*Health justice should be among the priorities of governments and international institutions. *

• "I hope for …] the adoption of a model of development founded on the centrality of the human being, on the promotion and sharing of the common good,*

zenit.org/article-31001?l=english

This just reinforces the point I have been making about the Church and political issues: the Church does not specify the means. She provides goals, not models. We may support or oppose Obamacare or any other form of health plan based on how we think it will work and the same is true of any other political issue … e.g. immigration. “The Church” has not called on us to reform our health care system in any particular way; there is no obligation to provide European style government health care. She would surely like to see a better system but she does not even suggest how we might achieve one.

Ender

Interesting interpretation; however, I don’t agree based on Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state, who delivered the Pope’s message, statement of:

“Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” he said, adding that the provision of minimal levels of medical attention to all is “commonly accepted as a fundamental human right.”

Governments are obligated, therefore, to adopt the proper legislative, administrative and financial measures to provide such care along with other basic conditions that promote good health, such as food security, water and housing, the cardinal said.

Also as the Pope stated, and you quoted:

It is necessary to work with greater commitment at all levels so that the right to health is rendered effective

All levels does not exclude any one particular level.

You do point out some of the difficulty I have in understanding the Christian message delivered through, what you consider to be his opinion, the Pope referencing the death penalty, immigration, the economy and social programs, more specifically in this discussion, universal healthcare. I fail to see a Christian message as excluding immigration reform, a economy for the common good of all, a universal healthcare, while being pro-death penalty. It seems at least one of the prior concerns, as spoke of by the Pope, would be viewed as correct and not ‘his opinion’.

 

[rlg94086]

Wow…I’m late to the thread. Are we executing people based on their views on Church teaching about universal access to healthcare?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This just reinforces the point I have been making about the Church and political issues: the Church does not specify the means. She provides goals, not models. We may support or oppose Obamacare or any other form of health plan based on how we think it will work and the same is true of any other political issue … e.g. immigration. “The Church” has not called on us to reform our health care system in any particular way; there is no obligation to provide European style government health care. She would surely like to see a better system but she does not even suggest how we might achieve one.

Ender

The Church does not explicitly define means, but through the Church’s goals we have direction. It is ironic to see how every issue can be supported or opposed, because it appears support, or opposition, is viewed through a biased eye.

Christ did not leave us a ‘legalized’ system for us to have to be extremely educated to understand His teachings. In fact, He taught us to be as ‘little children’. The Apostles did not write about such a legalized system for the layperson to have to litigate their way to truth. Paul simply instructed us to ‘obey our prelates’, for they have an account for our souls.

When we argue every point of an example of the Pope, I don’t believe it is the same as obeying.

I’ve tried to explain how I view the Pope’s, and others of the hierarchy in the Church, have, or should have, a much better understanding of all the Church’s teachings, throughout history. They would know whether their teaching is new, or in conflict. I would have to concede to even a ‘new’ teaching, with discernment, as I believe the Church is the ‘living’ Church, which evolves with age. God’s knowledge is infinite. Man’s is not. I would imagine there is much divine correction throughout the ages, even in His Church because it is controlled by man.

If we viewed everything now and called it against historic teaching of the Church, we have to go back to the earliest Christian Church and research all the original teachings. If I’m not mistaken, the earliest Church initially rejected soldiers from the communion of the faith. That changed, or ‘evolved’, over the years.

Again, the Church’s goals gives us direction. I feel we fail that ‘direction’ when we take liberty to agree or oppose the goals given us by the authoritative men of the Church. I take that view for myself, as working out my salvation with fear and trembling. That’s why I have personal difficult declaring one Pope’s opinion over another, or trying to litigate one Church teaching over another.

The state does not care for Church teaching to declare a right for itself. The state claimed right to execute Christ, and many other Christians in the Church’s earliest history because they were Christians. If I accepted a view of the state’s rights on the death penalty as a moral teaching of the Church, I feel I would have to view those executions as legitimate and rightful for the state. For me it’s contradictory to say the state has a right to take life in one instance, and then say it’s not right for the state to declare law that take’s life in other ways. This is why I believe the Church teaches just and unjust laws, in reference to the state’s rights.

If one thinks my view is ‘childish’, or as a little child’s, I can accept that; with fear and trembling.

 

[Ender]

You do point out some of the difficulty I have in understanding the Christian message delivered through, what you consider to be his opinion, the Pope referencing the death penalty, immigration, the economy and social programs, more specifically in this discussion, universal healthcare.

I am talking about the specifics of his comments … which were general and directed at goals and not the means of achieving those goals.

I fail to see a Christian message as excluding immigration reform, a economy for the common good of all, a universal healthcare, while being pro-death penalty. It seems at least one of the prior concerns, as spoke of by the Pope, would be viewed as correct and not ‘his opinion’.

This is absolutely maddening. Do you really not understand that just because I oppose the means you choose it doesn’t mean that I oppose the goal you are trying reach? I am not against immigration reform, an economy for the common good, or the best health care system for all. Why would you imagine such a thing? What we disagree about is what steps we should take to achieve those shared goals.

The relevance of this with regard to capital punishment has to do with what the Church does, and does not, teach as doctrine. There is no doctrine on how immigration reform should proceed, on how the economy should be structured, or on how health care should be delivered. There is, however, a doctrine on capital punishment, and it is this: States have the moral right to employ it.

Ender