Am I a dissenter if I reject Catholic teaching on the Death Penalty?

[Jocko_VT]

That’s why I said to ask for one. That is the point Ender just put forward.

That’s alright. Ender can make the argument if s/he wants. I don’t think it’s been made yet, though.

I’m sure you also read this quote from the Catechism:

I did read that quote–wasn’t that in your initial post here? It says nothing about the death penalty, but is just about punishment meeting the crime. The next paragraph actually *explicitly *deals with the death penalty. That’s meaningful to me…that the death penalty get special attention aside from the previous paragraph–as if it is specifically meant to qualify the previous paragraph.

It’s never as simple as one quote.

But, when one quote goes out of its way to make a specific point (about death penalty), that seems to me to be the final word on the death penalty–that paragraph trumps the previous paragraph, I’d think, and is meant to do so. I have trouble seeing how it could be read otherwise. Also, I don’t think there’s anything else in the entire CCC about the death penalty–just that one paragraph! Of course, I’m reading this as if the CCC contained everything relevant about the issue–perhaps I’m wrong.

In regards to legislating the Church’s morality, my point was in respect to this:
With my statement in the context of a discussion about what the Church teaches regarding the morality of the death penalty, you took it to conclude that therefore it should be illegal in the U.S.

I see why you read it that way, but that wasn’t my point. My point was that, for Catholics in the US, the death penalty should not be a viable option, based on *my *reading of the paragraphs you quoted from the Catechism (which is obviously in question). I was not making an argument about legislation.

I may be mistaken but were you not in another thread arguing that religious reasons cannot be used in determining the legality of things in a secular society?

Maybe. I’d have to look up the specifics, but that seems reasonable. As I mentioned already–just above–I wasn’t suggesting that the catechism be used to drive legislation.

And the point isn’t whether a religious reason can be used or not. The point is that, in a secular state, laws can not be based only on religious arguments. There has to be an argument aside from that. Thus, for example, if gay marriage is to be outlawed, or if adultery is to be outlawed, etc., then the rationale will have to go further than “Because God says so,” or “Because the Church tells us that it’s a sin.” In other words, a religious argument is an inadequate foundation for a secular law, I think.

Or are you just able to see in this thread how just because an argument comes from a religious source that does not automatically preclude that it is a religious argument?

It’s ironic to hear you say this. So many Catholics in these forums (and religious people everywhere) seem to think that if the Bible didn’t say it, or if the Church didn’t say it, we’d all be raping and pillaging, etc. Religious people are the ones, in my experience, who have trouble understanding that just because an argument is made in a religious source, that does not automatically make it a religious argument.

I don’t do that.

I think the problem here may be a difference on whether the religious argument is or is not a religious argument, rather than an argument that can stand without invoking the authority of God or of the Church.

If I’m wrong in assuming you were one of the ones making such accusations before then forgive me, but my point still stands to those out there who were.

“accusations”?

Mind you, I’m pro-death penalty. I think it’s used incorrectly, but I’m for the death penalty in many instances). I see the Church’s stance on the death penalty–which I think does in fact exclude its use in the US–as something I’ll have to deal with if I decide to convert.

 

[Ender]

I read through all the comments, including Ender’s. I didn’t see anything that explained away this from the Catechism: [2267]

But, perhaps I put too much stock in the Catechism as a representation of Catholic teaching.

The conclusion I have drawn on examining this topic is that 2267 is an expression of the prudential judgment of JPII on capital punishment and in fact is not a doctrinal statement. In this I agree with Cardinal Dulles who said exactly that.

Regarding the question of whether an execution “serves society better and is better way of prosecuting justice” than prison, I would argue that in many cases that statement is true whereas the current catechism holds that it is virtually never true. The new catechism - and therefore most Catholics - reject capital punishment because (they claim) it is not necessary for the protection of society. Even if one accepted this claim (and I don’t) it really wouldn’t matter because the question of using capital punishment turns on the issue of justice, not protection.

Ignore protection for the moment (which is a valid approach given that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment) and ask yourself: “What is the most fitting punishment for the crime of first degree murder?” We know (from CCC 2266) that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime so it is fair to ask whether any punishment other than the death penalty satisfies that obligation. The church teaches (taught) that the punishment for certain crimes was death and she based her position on Gen 9:6, which plainly says exactly that. This passage was explicitly referenced in the Catechism of Trent and (inexplicably given what is said in 2267) in 2260, with the helpful comment that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

If you want to argue (as I think JPII did) that executions cause more problems than they resolve, that’s a fair position to take but it must be acknowledged that this is an entirely prudential assessment. I think the moral position remains unchanged: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." The prescribed penalty for murder is death.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I did read that quote–wasn’t that in your initial post here? It says nothing about the death penalty, but is just about punishment meeting the crime. The next paragraph actually *explicitly *deals with the death penalty. That’s meaningful to me…that the death penalty get special attention aside from the previous paragraph–as if it is specifically meant to qualify the previous paragraph.

2267 doesn’t qualify 2266; it ignores it.

But, when one quote goes out of its way to make a specific point (about death penalty), that seems to me to be the final word on the death penalty–that paragraph trumps the previous paragraph, I’d think, and is meant to do so.

I think the concept that one truth “trumps” another truth is a dangerous one to believe. This approach leads to all sorts of problems. What one needs to do is find a way to resolve the apparent conflicts in a way that is consistent with what they all say; anything less is simply picking and choosing what to accept and what to ignore and is not a valid approach.

I have trouble seeing how it could be read otherwise. Also, I don’t think there’s anything else in the entire CCC about the death penalty–just that one paragraph! Of course, I’m reading this as if the CCC contained everything relevant about the issue–perhaps I’m wrong.

2267 is at odds with everything the church had written on the subject for nearly 2000 years. If you look at five previous catechisms, the writings of a half dozen popes prior to JPII, and the comments of the Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church you will gain an entirely different perspective. Nor have I found any way to reconcile what 2267 says with what was just said in 2260 - unless you accept that 2260 is doctrine and 2267 is prudential judgment.

Mind you, I’m pro-death penalty. I think it’s used incorrectly, but I’m for the death penalty in many instances). I see the Church’s stance on the death penalty–which I think does in fact exclude its use in the US–as something I’ll have to deal with if I decide to convert.

I can help with that.

Ender

 

[Nate13]

Thank you for your comments Ender. I think your last two posts help show how this issue is anything but simple.

 

[tominrichmond]

My point was that, for Catholics in the US, the death penalty should not be a viable option, based on *my *reading of the paragraphs you quoted from the Catechism (which is obviously in question).

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
–Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

There is certainly no requirement that Catholics oppose a just and moderate use of the DP. If you will look here: seeking4justice.blogspot.com/search/label/Rendering%20Offenders%20Harmless you will see some instances (by no means exhaustive) that demonstrate our inability to render some offenders harmless. Prison does not stop some offenders from being continued threats to others, fellow inmates, prison staff, or the public in the cases where escapes happen (and they do happen).

No, whatever the Catechism means when it refers vaguely to the “possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm,” it certainly cannot be referring to imprisonment, which decidedly does not, empirically and factually, render some offenders harmless.

Perhaps someday the authors of the new teaching will enlighten us as to just what the CCC is referring to in this passage, but until then, the US in fact complies with the Catechism’s desire that executions be “rare”-- death sentences are handed down in a miniscule .05% of murder cases. “Rare” indeed.

It is apparent that this bit of dime-store penology in the CCC is not something to which a Catholic owes any kind of religious assent, hence the quotation from our gloriously reigning BXVI, above.

 

[Jocko_VT]

2267 is an expression of the prudential judgment of JPII on capital punishment and in fact is not a doctrinal statement.

Perhaps. As I’ve pointed out, I’m treating the Catechism as true and complete. I may be wrong about that. If so, then I don’t have a leg to stand on. If I’m right though…

Regarding the question of whether an execution “serves society better and is better way of prosecuting justice” than prison, I would argue that in many cases that statement is true

Ha! So would I!! I just don’t think the Catechism does (which you seem to agree with–but you think the current catechism is wrong and/or incomplete and/or vague, yes?

What would be one hypothetical example?

whereas the current catechism holds that it is virtually never true. The new catechism - and therefore most Catholics - reject capital punishment because (they claim) it is not necessary for the protection of society.

Is this true of American Catholics? I would have guessed most American Catholics supported capital punishment, generally (say, in cases of 1st degree murder).

Even if one accepted this claim (and I don’t) it really wouldn’t matter because the question of using capital punishment turns on the issue of justice, not protection.

This does make it very complicated. But I think “justice” is more complicated than saying, e.g., murderers have it coming.

Ignore protection for the moment (which is a valid approach given that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment) and ask yourself: “What is the most fitting punishment for the crime of first degree murder?” We know (from CCC 2266) that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime so it is fair to ask whether any punishment other than the death penalty satisfies that obligation.

If death is commensurate with death, would not rape be commensurate with rape? If time in prison fits the crime of rape, why not murder?

The church teaches (taught) that the punishment for certain crimes was death and she based her position on Gen 9:6, which plainly says exactly that. /QUOTE]
The OT comments on the proper treatment of adulterers, too, and speaks on many other crimes. Are we opened up to that, or does this only apply to murder?
Ender;8777145:

This passage was explicitly referenced in the Catechism of Trent and (inexplicably given what is said in 2267) in 2260, with the helpful comment that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

If you want to argue (as I think JPII did) that executions cause more problems than they resolve,

I think that’s true, but it’s not my argument.

On the other hand, while it is good to cite Genesis, 2262 cites Christ, himself, and turning the other cheek, and his “proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance.”

that’s a fair position to take but it must be acknowledged that this is an entirely prudential assessment. I think the moral position remains unchanged: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."

The prescribed penalty for murder is death.

Ender
In the OT, the prescribed penalty for a lot of “crimes” was death. Jesus showed a higher path, didn’t he?

 

[Jocko_VT]

2267 doesn’t qualify 2266; it ignores it.

No. It qualifies it. And, looking over those few paragraphs again, it seems to mesh well with not only paragraph 2262, but also 2263-2265. In fact, even without 2267, 2266, in conjunction with the other nearby paragraphs, does not strike me as justifying capital punishment.

In an act of self-defense, what makes the killing of an aggressor “okay” is only that it’s unintentional. If a lethal blow is struck and was unnecessary, even in self-defense, that’s murder, and is not “okay.” “The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm” (i.e., defense of the common good, here, does not require killing).

I think the concept that one truth “trumps” another truth is a dangerous one to believe.

This assumes that each of 2266 and 2267 are “truths,” whole and complete. I don’t assume that. How I read the Catechism is that the paragraphs combined present a whole and complete truth, and that to take any one part out is to deal only with partial truths. Thus, 2266 makes a point, but it’s incomplete, so 2267 helps complete the point.

What one needs to do is find a way to resolve the apparent conflicts in a way that is consistent with what they all say; anything less is simply picking and choosing what to accept and what to ignore and is not a valid approach.

I agree. I’m the one who’s arguing that you can’t read 2266 in a vacuum! Hopefully, you’re not accusing me of “picking and choosing”!!! As I’ve said before, I’m taking the catechism into account. Nothing else. I may be wrong to do that–I may be putting too much stock in the Catechism. You’re argument is based not just on 2266, nor on the current version of the Catechism, but includes comments by a Cardinal, as well as the 400-plus year-old Catechism of the Council of Trent. Maybe your interpretation is correct, but I don’t think it’s correct based on the current Catechism–your argument stands on other documents.

2267 is at odds with everything the church had written on the subject for nearly 2000 years.

Notwithstanding Jesus’ words, which are cited in the Catechism (which I mentioned above). Otherwise, you may be right.

If you look at five previous catechisms,

My understanding is that the Catechism of Trent was only “replaced” by the current Catechism–thus nothing as authoritative, at least, appeared between what…1566 and 1992. Thus, prior to 1992, all catechisms were the product of a world where the worst of criminals could legitimately be kept locked up indefinitely. And by “legitimately,” I mean modern states, at least in the west, actually have the ability to do that. The new catechism, on the the other hand, exists in that world. That the previous catechisms didn’t cover the details we’re discussing doesn’t support either your nor my positions, I don’t think. (Of course, I could be wrong about the “five previous catechisms.” Were any of the others from the 20th Century West?)

the writings of a half dozen popes prior to JPII, and the comments of the Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church you will gain an entirely different perspective.

I don’t know the Popes you refer to–when was the most recent one?

“Early” church fathers and doctors have the same problem as the old catechisms–they’re from a different era.

Nor have I found any way to reconcile what 2267 says with what was just said in 2260 - unless you accept that 2260 is doctrine and 2267 is prudential judgment.

Mind you, as you know, the argument isn’t that Capital Punishment is never acceptable. Clearly, according to the Catechism, it is sometimes acceptable, and every morally necessary! The point is that it’s only acceptable when it’s necessary to protect others. Thus, 2267 simply makes that clear.

How do you reconcile 2260 with 2262?

Thanks for this! I so wish I had one Catholic around where I live to discuss matters like this (and much else) with.

 

[Jocko_VT]

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
–Pope Benedict XVI, June 2004

It’s ironic that you cite Pope Benedict here, and then in your link below, Pope Benedict is noted (as a “religious activist”) for his “outcry” in the Troy Davis execution.

Regardless, a “legitimate diversity” does not mean that anything goes!

There is certainly no requirement that Catholics oppose a just and moderate use of the DP. If you will look here: seeking4justice.blogspot.com/search/label/Rendering%20Offenders%20Harmless you will see some instances (by no means exhaustive) that demonstrate our inability to render some offenders harmless. Prison does not stop some offenders from being continued threats to others, fellow inmates, prison staff, or the public in the cases where escapes happen (and they do happen).

It’s unfortunate that you couldn’t find a more objective website!! But, I’m sure they’re hard to come by.

If you want to argue that the US system is not adequate, that’s fine. Then I would be wrong on that fact. But the principle of the argument isn’t really about that, is it. It’s about whether there is a possible society wherein the death penalty would never be necessary (yet still has to deal with murderers and the like).

As I said before, I’m pro-death penalty, but I think it’s used wrong. We execute too many people who should *not *be executed (as in the case with Troy Davis, in my opinion, and the mentally handicapped), and we don’t execute enough of the people who really should be executed.

Furthermore, we obviously need prison reform, and a reform in our laws. We have too many people in prison who shouldn’t be there. Inevitably, that weakens the penal system. And, prisons aren’t run correctly–there should be zero opportunity for an inmate to kill another inmate or a guard (or anyone else). So, perhaps your point is correct–the US isn’t in a position to abolish the death penalty (on Catholic grounds).

… it certainly cannot be referring to imprisonment, which decidedly does not, empirically and factually, render some offenders harmless.

“empirically and factually” confuses me.

Prison can work. I mentioned just above, though. I agree–it’s problematic, to say the least.

Perhaps someday the authors of the new teaching will enlighten us as to just what the CCC is referring to in this passage,

Hopefully we will be enlightened.

Ibut until then, the US in fact complies with the Catechism’s desire that executions be “rare”-- death sentences are handed down in a miniscule .05% of murder cases. “Rare” indeed.

I have to say, putting human lives in a percentage in this case is off-putting to me. What I can see on the internet is that, since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated, more the 1,200 people have been executed by the state in the US. That’s perhaps a minuscule percentage of this or that population, but that’s 1,200-plus individuals who are truly as human as you or me.

What percentage of murder cases should be executed?

What of the fact that we’ve created a society that produces murderers?

It is apparent that this bit of dime-store penology in the CCC is not something to which a Catholic owes any kind of religious assent, hence the quotation from our gloriously reigning BXVI, above.

The same BXVI who objects to the execution of Troy Davis, according to your link?

 

[Spirithound]

In summary the key is whether there is a reasonable alternative method by which justice can be obtained and the prevention of further crimes from the person in question is assured.

I wonder (and I’m not just responding to you…you’re just a springboard ) whether this proviso by the Church would actually make it impossible for the US to execute someone, since (as far as the reading I’ve done goes), “he might escape” is not one of the “aggravating factors” in any state.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps. As I’ve pointed out, I’m treating the Catechism as true and complete. I may be wrong about that. If so, then I don’t have a leg to stand on. If I’m right though…

The nature of the teaching of 2267 is no small matter. If it is prudential (and the comment about the capability of modern penal systems unarguably is) then, while it must be accorded respect, we may freely disagree with it.

you think the current catechism is wrong and/or incomplete and/or vague, yes?

I wish you wouldn’t phrase it that way. I believe that section 2267 contains error and opinion. That comment does not apply to the rest of the catechism.

What would be one hypothetical example?

This is not a road I want to travel. I recognize there may be exceptions.

This does make it very complicated. But I think “justice” is more complicated than saying, e.g., murderers have it coming.

The concept of justice does not complicate things, it clarifies them. It determines which punishments are allowed and which are forbidden … something a concern for protection cannot do.

If death is commensurate with death, would not rape be commensurate with rape? If time in prison fits the crime of rape, why not murder?

The word the church uses is “commensurate”, not “identical”. Barbarity by the criminal does not excuse barbarity by the state. Capital punishment, however, is not in that category. There are perhaps five to eight forms of punishment the church recognizes as valid.

The OT comments on the proper treatment of adulterers, too, and speaks on many other crimes. Are we opened up to that, or does this only apply to murder?

There is no justification for rejecting the entire OT. The church explicitly references one or two passages in the OT in regard to capital punishment. The sections she does not reference are not relevant.

On the other hand, while it is good to cite Genesis, 2262 cites Christ, himself, and turning the other cheek, and his “proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance.”

The obligation of the individual is forgive; the obligation of the state is to punish.

In the OT, the prescribed penalty for a lot of “crimes” was death. Jesus showed a higher path, didn’t he?

The church appears to disagree inasmuch as she has always supported the state’s right to impose capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

No. It qualifies it.

2266 identifies (not, unfortunately, in a form most people recognize) the primary objective of punishment as retributive justice. 2267 bases its opposition to capital punishment solely on a secondary objective - protection, thereby inappropriately ignoring not only the primary objective but the other two secondary objectives (rehabilitation and deterrence) as well. There is no justification for such an approach.

In fact, even without 2267, 2266, in conjunction with the other nearby paragraphs, does not strike me as justifying capital punishment.

The catechism is the Reader’s Digest condensed version of Catholic doctrine; it does not contain the whole of Catholic teaching. What is missing from its pages may readily be found elsewhere (e.g. the Catechism of Trent).

In an act of self-defense, what makes the killing of an aggressor “okay” is only that it’s unintentional.

The execution of a criminal is surely intentional … and the church allows it when necessary for protection, therefore capital punishment cannot be justified as an act of self-defense. If one rejects executions as unnecessary to satisfy the obligation of retributive justice, and if they don’t meet the requirement of self-defense that the death be unintentional, then on what basis can one even theoretically justify the use of capital punishment in any circumstance?

This assumes that each of 2266 and 2267 are “truths,” whole and complete. I don’t assume that. How I read the Catechism is that the paragraphs combined present a whole and complete truth, and that to take any one part out is to deal only with partial truths. Thus, 2266 makes a point, but it’s incomplete, so 2267 helps complete the point.

2266 says retributive justice is the primary objective of punishment. 2267 speaks solely about security and ignores the other three objectives. How does that help “complete the point”?

Maybe your interpretation is correct, but I don’t think it’s correct based on the current Catechism–your argument stands on other documents.

Just so. If 2267 was doctrine and not prudential opinion then I see no way to reconcile it with previous doctrine and would be forced to admit that the church taught error for nearly 2000 years (or is teaching error now.) If it is a prudential judgment, however, then there is no conflict.

Notwithstanding Jesus’ words, which are cited in the Catechism (which I mentioned above). Otherwise, you may be right.

This is based on your interpretation of Bible. What I have cited is how the church interprets things. If you can show where the church cites those passages in this context then you would have a point. I don’t expect anyone to accept my opinions so I don’t offer them. All of my comments are based on what the church and her theologians have said.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Reply to #47 cont.

My understanding is that the Catechism of Trent was only “replaced” by the current Catechism

Not really. Truth may be developed but it cannot be replaced.

Thus, prior to 1992, all catechisms were the product of a world where the worst of criminals could legitimately be kept locked up indefinitely. And by “legitimately,” I mean modern states, at least in the west, actually have the ability to do that. The new catechism, on the the other hand, exists in that world. That the previous catechisms didn’t cover the details we’re discussing doesn’t support either your nor my positions, I don’t think.

Morality does not change with time or place and the previous catechisms were very specific about the acceptance of capital punishment.

(Of course, I could be wrong about the “five previous catechisms.” Were any of the others from the 20th Century West?)

The Catechism of 1992. … The Catechism of Pius X, 1905 … The Baltimore Catechism, 1891

I don’t know the Popes you refer to–when was the most recent one?

Innocent I, 405 … Innocent III, 1210 … Pius V, 1566 … Leo XIII, 1891 … Pius X, 1905 … Pius XII, 1954

“Early” church fathers and doctors have the same problem as the old catechisms–they’re from a different era.

*Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” *(Fr. John Hardon, 1998)

The point is that it’s only acceptable when it’s necessary to protect others.

The church has never taught this; this claim did not develop from previous doctrine and I do not accept it.

How do you reconcile 2260 with 2262?

The obligations of the individual are different than those of the state.

Ender

 

[Jocko_VT]

The nature of the teaching of 2267 is no small matter. If it is prudential (and the comment about the capability of modern penal systems unarguably is) then, while it must be accorded respect, we may freely disagree with it.

I wish you wouldn’t phrase it that way. I believe that section 2267 contains error and opinion. That comment does not apply to the rest of the catechism.

No worries. I wasn’t intending to suggest anything. Just trying to sort out how the Catechism *is *read. Again, I take it one way, and I’m not at all certain that I take it the *correct *way.

You’ll understand, I’m sure. I’m in RCIA. I actually *need *to sort things like this out. If 2267 “contains error and [mere] opinion,” I wonder how many of the other 2864 paragraphs in the Catechism also do. As we’re demonstrating here, if, indeed, 2267 contains error, it makes at least that entire section erroneous, by virtue of the fact that 2267 qualifies how the whole must be read. If one needs outside documentation to make sense of this section of the Catechism, it’s reasonable for someone like me to question the veracity of reading any of the Catechism, given my minuscule experience with any of the outside documentation (I’ve only read a handful of encyclicals).

This is not a road I want to travel. I recognize there may be exceptions.

Fair enough.

The concept of justice does not complicate things, it clarifies them. It determines which punishments are allowed and which are forbidden … something a concern for protection cannot do.

But whose justice? What is just? It does complicate things. Who are we–law-abiding, tax-paying citizens–to eliminate even a murder’s opportunity to repent and be saved by executing him or her? Especially when it does nothing to protect us?

The word the church uses is “commensurate”, not “identical”. Barbarity by the criminal does not excuse barbarity by the state. Capital punishment, however, is not in that category. There are perhaps five to eight forms of punishment the church recognizes as valid.

I believe Capital Punishment is barbarous. I’ll have to look up those 5 to 8 forms of punishment–I’ve never come across that.

There is no justification for rejecting the entire OT. The church explicitly references one or two passages in the OT in regard to capital punishment. The sections she does not reference are not relevant.

Fair enough. Let’s not cite the OT, then. Let’s cite the Church’s citation of the OT. In retrospect, that’s clearly what you were doing. That’s not how I read it.

The obligation of the individual is forgive; the obligation of the state is to punish.

Hmmm. This is dangerous. It reifies the state, as if it really existed outside the individuals who make it up–and it doesn’t. How we move from an individual morality to a separate group morality is unclear to me. Furthermore, the question isn’t whether the state *can *punish, but *how *it can punish.

The church appears to disagree inasmuch as she has always supported the state’s right to impose capital punishment.

Ender

The state’s right to impose capital punishment isn’t in question. The appropriate time to impose capital punishment is in question.

It’s the same at the individual level–we have a right to homicide! *When *we can do it is severely restricted, however. Thus, according to the Church, we are not obligated to allow an aggressor to kill us or others. In fact, it seems to me according to the Catechism, we are morally obligated to repel such aggression, even to the point of killing the aggressor, if need be.

That this point is made in the Catechism *between *2260 and 2266-2267 suggests its relevance even at the state level, unless the ordering of the paragraphs of the Catechism is more haphazard than I suspect.

I do believe all this comes down to the legitimacy of paragraph 2267, though. If you’re correct, that it can be characterized as “error and opinion,” then end of discussion–I’d have to agree with you in that case. Otherwise, I don’t see any way around: “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.”

 

[Ender]

Regardless, a “legitimate diversity” does not mean that anything goes!

True, but we should accept that at a minimum it means what it says.

If you want to argue that the US system is not adequate, that’s fine. Then I would be wrong on that fact.

The point is debatable … which is exactly why one is justified in claiming that the catechism contains prudential opinion.

The same BXVI who objects to the execution of Troy Davis, according to your link?

No one disputes JPII’s and BXVI’s opposition to the use of capital punishment. The debate is really whether that objection is moral or prudential and the pope’s position would have been clearer had he opposed the execution of Lawrence Brewer which occurred on the same day as Davis’ execution.

Ender

 

[Jocko_VT]

Reply to #47 cont.
Not really. Truth may be developed but it cannot be replaced.

Hence the quotations around “replaced.”

Morality does not change with time or place and the previous catechisms were very specific about the acceptance of capital punishment.

I didn’t suggest otherwise. *Morality *hasn’t changed. The *conditions *under which the moral code exists have changed radically. That’s the entire point. Prior to the twentieth century, it was probably never realistic to suspect the state could legitimately protect people from the worst criminals. Today, it is realistic.

The Catechism of 1992. … The Catechism of Pius X, 1905 … The Baltimore Catechism, 1891
Innocent I, 405 … Innocent III, 1210 … Pius V, 1566 … Leo XIII, 1891 … Pius X, 1905 … Pius XII, 1954
*Equally important is the Pope’s [Pius XII] insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” *(Fr. John Hardon, 1998)r

So, Pius XII is a good example in your defense (based on the argument I was making). But, what Pius XII says here does not contradict 2267. The question isn’t *whether *the state can kill people, but *when *it can.

The church has never taught this; this claim did not develop from previous doctrine and I do not accept it.

Fair enough. It is in the Catechism, though. And that’s the *only *place my argument is coming from, as I’ve explained. The citation of Aquinas in 2264 is relevant here, but if you’re correct, that the state is above this, then it doesn’t apply.

I don’t think I can say any more on this. My argument is out there completely. You seem to be moving too much into the question of *whether *the state has a right to impose capital punishment–which isn’t in question–as opposed to *when *the state may impose it.

 

[Jocko_VT]

True, but we should accept that at a minimum it means what it says.

I agree. The question is, what does it say? It doesn’t say that any argument in support of (or against) capital punishment is equally valid.

The point is debatable … which is exactly why one is justified in claiming that the catechism contains prudential opinion.

I think you read far more into 2267 than I do. I look at the principle of the paragraph. JPII may be wrong about whether or not modern states are what they are, but the principle strikes me as legitimate (and that’s the only part of this I’ve been arguing about). Thus, if the US *can’t *protect citizens, so be it…they have to kill people. All 2267 says is that the only time that’s morally feasible is “if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Thus, are we debating about the reality of modern states’ penal institutions? Or are we discussing the “only possible way” principle. My only argument regards the principle, which is why I happily conceded on the point of whether modern states can truly do what JPII was suggesting. I think you’re debating the principle, too, and arguing that it’s wrong. You base this on material outside the current catechism. The current catechism is all I have to base it on, at the moment. In other words, we aren’t disagreeing on anything, I don’t think. We’re arguing from clearly different foundations. Does that make sense to you?

No one disputes JPII’s and BXVI’s opposition to the use of capital punishment. The debate is really whether that objection is moral or prudential and the pope’s position would have been clearer had he opposed the execution of Lawrence Brewer which occurred on the same day as Davis’ execution.

Ender

I was only pointing out the irony of starting off with a quote of BXVI, and following it by an example of said Pope’s opposition to capital punishment.

 

[Barbkw]

As I understand it, the current, modern, recently developed Catholic teaching on the death penalty should be for rare, extraordinary criminals only, like maybe Adolf Hitler or Osama Bin Laden, and that it should not be applied to run-of-the-mill premeditated murderers.

As I understand it, the law in U.S. states that have the death penalty that it can be applied in any case of premeditated murder, and even in some situations of “felony murder” (no specific intent to murder required).

I’ve watched nearly every MSNBC prison program in the long set of “Lock Up” series.

Fasticated me for a time.

The Catechism (in short) says that the death penalty is allowed and neccessary for the protection of the public when a society is financially incapable of housing these dangerous individuals.

The financial reality in the U.S. is that we (the public) spend more money on retrials and public defender costs for the death penalty convicts than we do on those persons sentenced with life without the possibility of parole.

 

[Nate13]

@Jocko_VT
You should tackle the idea of Old Testament vs New Testament soon and it may help you out here as well as in a lot of other places. Otherwise you end up disqualifying everything in the Old Testament except the Ten Commandments in practical use. You shouldn’t be disqualifying the Old Testament though, but rather trying to look at how Jesus built upon it.

 

[Ender]

I wonder how many of the other 2864 paragraphs in the Catechism also do.

As far as I know similar objections have not been raised to any other section.

if, indeed, 2267 contains error, it makes at least that entire section erroneous, by virtue of the fact that 2267 qualifies how the whole must be read.

• “The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II.” *(Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome)

If one needs outside documentation to make sense of this section of the Catechism, it’s reasonable for someone like me to question the veracity of reading any of the Catechism, given my minuscule experience with any of the outside documentation (I’ve only read a handful of encyclicals).

“*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe.” *(R. Michael Dunnigan, J.D., J.C.L. - canon lawyer)

Who are we–law-abiding, tax-paying citizens–to eliminate even a murder’s opportunity to repent and be saved by executing him or her?

“*Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications.” *(Romano Amerio, peritas, Vatican II)

I believe Capital Punishment is barbarous.

*“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.” (Catechism of Trent) *

Ender

 

[Ender]

Reply to #53 cont.

Let’s cite the Church’s citation of the OT.

“*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4).” *(Cardinal Dulles, 2002)

This is dangerous. It reifies the state, as if it really existed outside the individuals who make it up–and it doesn’t. How we move from an individual morality to a separate group morality is unclear to me.

*He who takes vengeance on the wicked in keeping with his rank and position does not usurp what belongs to God but makes use of the power granted him by God. For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” *(Aquinas ST II-II 108, 1 ad 1)

The state’s right to impose capital punishment isn’t in question. The appropriate time to impose capital punishment is in question.

“The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man, since God declares that He created all things for man’s sake. Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness [Gen 9:6], he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself!” (Catechism of Trent)

That this point is made in the Catechism *between *2260 and 2266-2267 suggests its relevance even at the state level, unless the ordering of the paragraphs of the Catechism is more haphazard than I suspect.

If your interpretation was correct then neither the state nor the individual would have authority to kill, but we know the individual may kill in self defense so your interpretation cannot be valid.

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)

I do believe all this comes down to the legitimacy of paragraph 2267, though. If you’re correct, that it can be characterized as “error and opinion,” then end of discussion–I’d have to agree with you in that case.

The first sentence about the traditional teaching of the Church is wrong and the final sentence about the capabilities of modern penal systems is an opinion.

Ender