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

[Ender]

*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 changed conditions you note refer solely to the secondary objective of protection; the extent of the punishments required to satisfy the primary objective of retributive justice have not changed, nor can they.

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.

CCC 2266 “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties…” The state has the duty to punish; the individual is forbidden to. Clearly what applies to one cannot automatically apply to the other.

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.

The argument hinges on the criteria that determine when capital punishment is appropriate. 2267 claims that the sole criterion is whether it is needed for security. My argument is that it is needed to satisfy the obligation of retributive justice and that, per Gen 9:6, this is what the Church has always taught.

You have not addressed 2260. How do you reconcile what it says with what is in 2267?

Ender

 

[Jocko_VT]

@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…

Indeed! There’s so much, though, and I can’t do it all at once–baby steps.

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.

But I’ve disqualified nothing from the OT. I’ve only rejected what I perceived (incorrectly) as someone’s cherry-picking of the OT.

 

[Ender]

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).

I have claimed that 2267 contains prudential opinion, and I think you agree with this. This is an important concession that many people are unwilling to make as it demolishes the argument that “It’s in the catechism so it must be true.”

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.

This is correct. I reject the principle that the severity of the punishment should be determined solely by whether or not it is necessary for security.

You base this on material outside the current catechism. The current catechism is all I have to base it on, at the moment.

I have referenced a number of doctrines that are not fully expounded in the new catechism. Surely it is valid to cite church doctrine wherever it is found but I can make a strong case against 2267 based solely on what is contained in that catechism. 2266 and 2260 are every bit as valid as 2267 and I can see no way to reconcile those passages from a doctrinal perspective.

In other words, we aren’t disagreeing on anything, I don’t think. We’re arguing from clearly different foundations.

No, we are definitely disagreeing and you must surely recognize the inappropriateness of disallowing everything the Church has ever said except what is in the current catechism.

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.

It isn’t whether he disapproves of the application of capital punishment that is at issue, it is his reasons for disapproval - whether they are prudential or doctrinal. I have trouble believing he would recognize a “legitimate diversity of opinion” on doctrinal matters.

Ender

 

[Jocko_VT]

• “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)
  “*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)r

The above are opinions in agreement with you. I never said such a thing didn’t exist, of course. They don’t make your case, though.

“*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)

Is this saying that killing a man at time X has no consequence for his immortal soul? This presupposes that had he lived, his views would not have changed, or that any change would be irrelevant (i.e., that, assuming him to be unrepentant, who would either have not eventually repented, or he his repentance would have been irrelevant)? I’m not sure I understand this quote.

*“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

The key here is the “just use of power.” JPII, in the Catechism, says that it is at least more just to refrain from using the death penalty if other options are available. Based on what I was arguing above, it is not just for an individual to kill even a person who had killed others if the aggressor can be subdued without a lethal blow. And, this principle, I argued, applies to the state, too. This doesn’t negate the Catechism of Trent quote above.

 

[Jocko_VT]

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.

No. They have the authority to kill when there is no other option! I’ve been *extremely *clear on that point.

“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)
Ender

“just war” adds complexity, eh?

Yes. The individual gets a pass when following orders–here there’s a legitimate distinction between state and individual. But, just because the individual is acting “lawfully,” does not mean the “Supreme Authority” is, and that’s where the question is.

Yes…“in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life…”

Again–in everything I’ve covered here in these last two posts–the question you’re focusing on is whether the state has the authority to implement the death penalty. It has nothing to do with when, with the exception of one quote on retribution, which I’ll get to in another post.

But, let me reiterate two points you seem to be ignoring. A) the question at hand concerns the principle JPII put forth, not the question of whether the state has that authority. It’s not if, but *when *the death penalty is allowable! B) I have already conceded that *if *the Catechism can not be trusted on this matter, then I don’t have a leg to stand on. You’re presenting a lot of information that argues the Catechism is wrong. Fair enough. If your goal is to convince me, though, you won’t be able to do it with a litany of one-liner from canon lawyers and bishops. I’ll have to read for myself.

So, why do you continue with this? I’ve conceded that if you’re correct about the inadequacy of the catechism, then I don’t know what I’m talking about.

 

[Jocko_VT]

The changed conditions you note refer solely to the secondary objective of protection; the extent of the punishments required to satisfy the primary objective of retributive justice have not changed, nor can they.

Correct.

CCC 2266 “Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties…” The state has the duty to punish; the individual is forbidden to. Clearly what applies to one cannot automatically apply to the other.

But, the way the catechism reads, neither the state nor the individual can kill without it being in defense. You disagree, because you believe retribution–not only defense–justifies it.

But, “penalties” do not necessarily include death…which is the point of 2267. In fact, the death penalty is only acceptable in case of defense, according to 2267.

The argument hinges on the criteria that determine when capital punishment is appropriate. 2267 claims that the sole criterion is whether it is needed for security. My argument is that it is needed to satisfy the obligation of retributive justice and that, per Gen 9:6, this is what the Church has always taught.

You have not addressed 2260. How do you reconcile what it says with what is in 2267?

Ender

In my copy of the Catechism, 2259-2262 come under the subheadings “I. Respect for Human Life,” and “the witness of sacred history.” They are a background. In light of what follows, I read 2260 as providing the moral right to impose the death penalty. However, I read 2262 as pointing to a higher way.

2267 acknowledges both 2260 and 2262. The state has the right, and it’s best not to kill out of vengeance. It also takes into account 2263 and 2265. I think you read the Genesis quote in 2260 as a mandate to kill–we must kill murderers. I think you also distinguish between retribution and vengeance.

2263 argues that defense, even to the point of killing others, is legitimate, but the killing is “unintended.” This applies to “the legitimate defense of persons and societies…”

Thus, individuals and societies may kill, in defense.

2265 invokes “legitimate defense” again. It requires than “an unjust aggressor to be rendered unable to cause harm.” Civil authorities have authority to do this. But, based on 2263, the authority to kill only extends to legitimate defense, and killing must be “unintended.”

2266 The state has the right to punish. “…as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.” The footnote points to [BIBLEDRB]LK 23:40-43[/BIBLEDRB]
The citation is interesting. If I believed that gallows conversions were typical, I’d hang it up here (see the pun???). But, I think the point of the Luke citation is that we should want for criminals to repent–love them as ourselves and as God…we want even the most heinous murderers to be saved!

2267 Says things you say are incorrect. To my eye, it follows quite nicely from 2260 through 2266, if we take them all in conjunction and do not just try to contrast, say, 2260 and 2267 directly. The paragraphs between add to our understanding of 2260 and 2267.

Without 2267, it all changes, though.

Now, again, I’ll concede, if the Catechism is wrong (2267, in particular) then I don’t have an argument.

What is said *specifically *about the use of the death penalty, in particular, as providing retributive justice elsewhere? Did you cover that already?

 

[Buck_Crosswhite]

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).

No DP if it isn’t capital murder in TX.

 

[Ender]

They don’t make your case, though.

They make the case that there are serious problems with 2267.

I’m not sure I understand this quote.

He’s saying opposition to capital punishment on these grounds is not a valid concern.

“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” (Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles)

The key here is the “just use of power.” JPII, in the Catechism, says that it is at least more just to refrain from using the death penalty if other options are available.

No, he absolutely did not say this or anything like this. Neither JPII in Evangelium Vitae (#56) nor 2267 makes any comment whatever about justice. That issue is ignored by them but one thing we do know for certain - based on 2000 years of support for the right of states to impose capital punishment - the Church considers execution a just punishment for certain crimes.

Based on what I was arguing above, it is not just for an individual to kill even a person who had killed others if the aggressor can be subdued without a lethal blow. And, this principle, I argued, applies to the state, too.

The individual is allowed to kill in self-defense only if his intent was not to kill but to protect, as you pointed out earlier. It can hardly be said of a state execution that the intent is not to kill so, if you apply the same principle in both cases, the state’s action would be condemned. The principle of self-defense does not justify capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

They have the authority to kill when there is no other option!

Yes, the individual certainly has that right but the exercise of this right conflicts with the passage you cited as an argument against the right of a state to execute someone. In this area the state has greater rights than the individual so if the passage you cited does not prohibit the individual from killing - and you recognize that it doesn’t - then it cannot possibly prohibit that action by the state.

Again–in everything I’ve covered here in these last two posts–the question you’re focusing on is whether the state has the authority to implement the death penalty. It has nothing to do with when, with the exception of one quote on retribution, which I’ll get to in another post.

Inasmuch as retribution is the primary objective of punishment this is no minor point.

(A) It’s not if, but *when *the death penalty is allowable!

CCC 2260 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image."

(B) You’re presenting a lot of information that argues the Catechism is wrong. Fair enough. If your goal is to convince me, though, you won’t be able to do it with a litany of one-liner from canon lawyers and bishops. I’ll have to read for myself.

Ratzinger “Diversity of opinion” holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm
Dulles “Prudential opinion” catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html
Dunnigan “Dangerous ambiguity” st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/2003/21-4.pdf
Flannery “Contains errors” avemarialaw.edu/assets/documents/lawreview/articles/flannery.copyright.pdf

So, why do you continue with this? I’ve conceded that if you’re correct about the inadequacy of the catechism, then I don’t know what I’m talking about.

As I said, I can make the case for a problem with 2267 solely on what is contained in other sections on that same topic (2266, 2260). So long as you raise objections to my arguments I will continue to respond.

Ender

 

[Ender]

But, the way the catechism reads, neither the state nor the individual can kill without it being in defense. You disagree, because you believe retribution–not only defense–justifies it.

The Church has never used that principle before and I think the reason for that is twofold: it doesn’t meet the criteria for the principle of double effect and it doesn’t address the obligation of retributive justice.

The Holy Father is obviously invoking the principle of double effect in the passage, for his concern is to deny that the “fatal outcome” is attributable to the self-defender’s intention; accordingly, he cites Part II-II, Question 64, Article 7 of the Summa at this point. Paragraph 56 then begins with the remark, “It is in this context that the question of capital punishment arises.” But this is false, at least historically, for the question was never considered by the Church within that context. (Flannery)

*The personal self-defender needs to be forced into performing the lethal action; the soldier, the minister of the judge, and the executioner do not. Since the latter three figures do not necessarily act on the spur of the moment and since, when not so acting, they have various means at their disposal, force (in the sense we have been discussing) cannot be the morally decisive factor. **In other words, given their shared context as officers of the law, the principle of double effect as set out by Aquinas *cannot apply to them. (Ibid)

But, “penalties” do not necessarily include death…which is the point of 2267. In fact, the death penalty is only acceptable in case of defense, according to 2267.

That is what 2267 says … but 2260 contradicts it and claims that the death penalty is not merely appropriate but necessary.

In my copy of the Catechism, 2259-2262 come under the subheadings “I. Respect for Human Life,” and “the witness of sacred history.” They are a background. In light of what follows, I read 2260 as providing the moral right to impose the death penalty. However, I read 2262 as pointing to a higher way.

2260 also says “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” but you’re willing to dismiss it by the time you’ve finished reading 2262. You cannot just ignore 2260 as if it was merely an historical footnote. As I tried to point out in my previous post, you cannot interpret 2262 as applying to states but not individuals. The individual retains his right to self-defense despite 2262 and the state equally retains its right to employ capital punishment. If 2262 points to a “higher way” it is a way the Church didn’t take for nearly 2000 years.

2267 acknowledges both 2260 and 2262. The state has the right, and it’s best not to kill out of vengeance.

You keep finding things in 2267 that aren’t there. It doesn’t acknowledge 2260 or any other section. It is entirely novel and stands without a single reference to … anything at all.

I think you read the Genesis quote in 2260 as a mandate to kill–we must kill murderers.

I read 2260 as the Church does and as she explained it in the Catechism of Trent.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Reply to #66 cont.

I think you also distinguish between retribution and vengeance.

There may be a subtle difference between them but in the main they mean the same thing.

*When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. *(Aquinas)

*Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Ibid)
*

But, based on 2263, the authority to kill only extends to legitimate defense, and killing must be “unintended.”

And how in the world can you claim that the deliberate execution of a prisoner is an unintended killing?

2266 The state has the right to punish. "…

The state has the right and **duty **to punish …

as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party." The footnote points to LK 23:40-43. The citation is interesting. If I believed that gallows conversions were typical, I’d hang it up here (see the pun???). But, I think the point of the Luke citation is that we should want for criminals to repent–love them as ourselves and as God…we want even the most heinous murderers to be saved!

No argument here; rehabilitation is one of the four objectives of punishment. It is a secondary objective (like defense) but it is surely a valid objective. As, by the way, is deterrence, an equally valid objective that is not mentioned anywhere in the entire section. Would you assume from this that the Church no longer considers deterrence a valid objective?

2267 Says things you say are incorrect.

It is a matter of fact that the traditional teaching of the Church never included the restriction claimed in 2267 that capital punishment was limited to cases “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” That statement is wrong.

To my eye, it follows quite nicely from 2260 through 2266, if we take them all in conjunction and do not just try to contrast, say, 2260 and 2267 directly. The paragraphs between add to our understanding of 2260 and 2267.

“Taking them in conjunction” here means interpreting what is said in one section as overriding and obliterating what was said in other sections. You’ve dismissed 2260 as nothing more than an historical reference of no current significance despite the fact that for 2000 years the Church’s position on capital punishment has been based on the scripture passage it cites. You also simply dismiss the plain meaning of the claim that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

If 2267 is right in claiming that only the defense of society justifies capital punishment then doesn’t this vitiate the claim made in 2266 that the primary objective of punishment is retribution (and not defense)? 2267 can only stand by ignoring what was said in 2260 and 2266. Doctrine develops by expanding on what was previously taught, not by dismissing it, which is what is happening here.

What is said *specifically *about the use of the death penalty, in particular, as providing retributive justice elsewhere? Did you cover that already?

*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. *(Catechism of Trent)

“Just use” in this case means use by civil authority after a fair and proper trial. It is clear that it was meant to be used against murderers as its use in such cases is referred to as an act of* “paramount obedience.”* Later in that section they directly reference Gen 9:6 as the basis for this position, the same reference made in 2260 which you have dismissed.

Ender

 

[socialcath101]

The Church says officially that use of the death penalty should be rare and that it is allowed for extremely heinous crimes… But more and more theologians, priests, Bishops, and even the Holy Father say it causes more harm than good these days…

I think working for the gradual abolition of capital punishment would be a very noble and holy thing to do…

 

[Jocko_VT]

Reply to #66 cont.
There may be a subtle difference between them but in the main they mean the same thing.

*When, therefore, anyone does good or evil to another individual, there is a twofold measure of merit or demerit in his action: first, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the individual to whom he has done good or harm; secondly, in respect of the retribution owed to him by the whole of society. *(Aquinas)

*Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Ibid)

• And how in the world can you claim that the deliberate execution of a prisoner is an unintended killing?
  The state has the right and **duty **to punish …
  No argument here; rehabilitation is one of the four objectives of punishment. It is a secondary objective (like defense) but it is surely a valid objective. As, by the way, is deterrence, an equally valid objective that is not mentioned anywhere in the entire section. Would you assume from this that the Church no longer considers deterrence a valid objective?
  
  It is a matter of fact that the traditional teaching of the Church never included the restriction claimed in 2267 that capital punishment was limited to cases “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” That statement is wrong.
  “Taking them in conjunction” here means interpreting what is said in one section as overriding and obliterating what was said in other sections. You’ve dismissed 2260 as nothing more than an historical reference of no current significance despite the fact that for 2000 years the Church’s position on capital punishment has been based on the scripture passage it cites. You also simply dismiss the plain meaning of the claim that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

If 2267 is right in claiming that only the defense of society justifies capital punishment then doesn’t this vitiate the claim made in 2266 that the primary objective of punishment is retribution (and not defense)? 2267 can only stand by ignoring what was said in 2260 and 2266. Doctrine develops by expanding on what was previously taught, not by dismissing it, which is what is happening here.
*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. *(Catechism of Trent)

“Just use” in this case means use by civil authority after a fair and proper trial. It is clear that it was meant to be used against murderers as its use in such cases is referred to as an act of* “paramount obedience.”* Later in that section they directly reference Gen 9:6 as the basis for this position, the same reference made in 2260 which you have dismissed.

Ender

You’ve stopped listening, Ender. I am happy to have you argue against my points, but you’ve stopped listening to my points, and keep laying up evidence for a position I’m not arguing against, and which, in fact, I’ve conceded time and again. You’ve even begun to break my own paragraphs apart to argue against single sentences as though they say something which, when taken in the context of the whole paragraph, they clearly don’t say! Ironic, since that’s what I’m saying you’re doing with paragraphs 2260-2267-- interpreting parts as though the other parts don’t exist so that you can claim the other parts are wrong.

I believe the catechism, as it is, taken as a whole, without contradiction, clearly argues that the death penalty may only be imposed morally if there’s no other means to protect against the criminal in question. You understand my position, and you disagree. You believe it is clear–even when the Catechism is taken as an independent source–that 2267 is incorrect. I’ve read your reasoning, and I disagree with you. Furthermore, you argue that, when taken in conjunction with numerous teachings from the Church from the past 2,000 years, paragraph 2267 is clearly incorrect–a point which I have not argued against.

It was a good discussion. I appreciate it.

Take care.

 

[Nate13]

I believe the catechism, as it is, taken as a whole, without contradiction, clearly argues that the death penalty may only be imposed morally if there’s no other means to protect against the criminal in question. You understand my position, and you disagree. You believe it is clear–even when the Catechism is taken as an independent source–that 2267 is incorrect. I’ve read your reasoning, and I disagree with you. Furthermore, you argue that, when taken in conjunction with numerous teachings from the Church from the past 2,000 years, paragraph 2267 is clearly incorrect–a point which I have not argued against.

It was a good discussion. I appreciate it.

Take care.

I think the problem is what you were arguing for is pointless. The Catechism itself says its not an all encompassing document. Catholics don’t believe in Bible alone and they don’t believe in Catechism alone either. I always viewed the Catechism as a starting point in the quest for an answer, which is why its quoted so much. You start with the Catechism and then use all other available sources for clarity.

I would also argue that the Catechism is not wrong on the death penalty in 2267, its just misleading. These discussions always turn into a fight between two principles about which one is more important. the need for retributive justice vs. forgiveness

 

[Jocko_VT]

I think the problem is what you were arguing for is pointless.

Which is exactly why I stated on *multiple *occasions that *if *the Catechism can *not *be taken independently as a definitive source on this question, then I don’t have a leg to stand on. I’ve conceded *everything *else.

Is it not pointless to insist on arguing position X with someone who fully concedes position X?

I’m not sure why anyone would want to carry this on anymore!?!?

 

[Ender]

These discussions always turn into a fight between two principles about which one is more important. the need for retributive justice vs. forgiveness

If you think about it you wouldn’t expect to find two virtues competing with one another.

*Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it *(JPII)

I suspect that most people understand retributive justice better than they do forgiveness and it is a misunderstanding of the latter that causes the apparent conflict. It seems to be assumed that we are obligated to forgive everyone about everything, every time without exception, and this is not correct. If God employed that standard we would be justified in doubting the existence of hell, after all: who would end up there if all was forgiven? Among other things it must be recognized that the individual and the state have different obligations in this regard: the individual must forgive offenses against himself but the state must punish crimes.

Q. 817. If, then, it be a Christian virtue to forgive all injuries, why do Christians establish courts and prisons to punish wrongdoers?*
A. Christians establish courts and prisons to punish wrongdoers, because the preservation of lawful authority, good order in society, the protection of others, and sometimes even the good of the guilty one himself, require that crimes be justly punished. As God Himself punishes crime and as lawful authority comes from Him, such authority has the right to punish, though individuals should forgive the injuries done to themselves personally.* (Baltimore Catechism)

Ender

 

[yosupman]

If you think about it you wouldn’t expect to find two virtues competing with one another.

*Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it *(JPII)

I suspect that most people understand retributive justice better than they do forgiveness and it is a misunderstanding of the latter that causes the apparent conflict. It seems to be assumed that we are obligated to forgive everyone about everything, every time without exception, and this is not correct. If God employed that standard we would be justified in doubting the existence of hell, after all: who would end up there if all was forgiven? Among other things it must be recognized that the individual and the state have different obligations in this regard: the individual must forgive offenses against himself but the state must punish crimes.

Q. 817. If, then, it be a Christian virtue to forgive all injuries, why do Christians establish courts and prisons to punish wrongdoers?*
A. Christians establish courts and prisons to punish wrongdoers, because the preservation of lawful authority, good order in society, the protection of others, and sometimes even the good of the guilty one himself, require that crimes be justly punished. As God Himself punishes crime and as lawful authority comes from Him, such authority has the right to punish, though individuals should forgive the injuries done to themselves personally.* (Baltimore Catechism)

Ender

Ender - Why quote the Baltimore Catechism? The prudential teaching of the church on the death penalty has developed in the magisterium over the last 50-75 years. The Baltimore Catechism is more than 100 years old.

Also, this thread has been going since September. I don’t understand why you are still making comments 5 months later. This topic must really trouble you.

 

[Ender]

Ender - Why quote the Baltimore Catechism?

Because in this instance it gave the clearest response to a specific question.

The prudential teaching of the church on the death penalty has developed in the magisterium over the last 50-75 years.

True, but prudential opinions are not doctrines and I’ve been making doctrinal arguments, not prudential ones.

The Baltimore Catechism is more than 100 years old.

And the Church is 2000 years old but we don’t discard the teaching of the Early Fathers because of that. Given that morality does not change with time and place, if the Baltimore Catechism was true when it was published then it is just as true today.

Also, this thread has been going since September. I don’t understand why you are still making comments 5 months later. This topic must really trouble you.

So long as the issue is debated I will continue to comment on it, not because it troubles me but because so many of the arguments used against it are not based on Church doctrine. I’m just trying to clarify the topic.

Ender

 

[yosupman]

Because in this instance it gave the clearest response to a specific question.
True, but prudential opinions are not doctrines and I’ve been making doctrinal arguments, not prudential ones.
And the Church is 2000 years old but we don’t discard the teaching of the Early Fathers because of that. Given that morality does not change with time and place, if the Baltimore Catechism was true when it was published then it is just as true today.
So long as the issue is debated I will continue to comment on it, not because it troubles me but because so many of the arguments used against it are not based on Church doctrine. I’m just trying to clarify the topic.

Ender

Ender - the teaching of the church on the death penalty in the last 30 years especially is part of the authentic magisterium of the church and as such we are to adhere to this teaching is religious assent of mind and will according to the mind of the holy father. Lumen Gentium at Vatican II clearly taught this:

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.

The church in her authentic magisterium adresses pertinent issues in light of the faith. The church applies the unchanging doctrine of the faith to particular situations and guides the faithful. The catechism of the Catholic church clearly states in paragraph 891/892 that the even when the holy father does not intend to define a doctrine, but to expound upon a topic of faith and morals to help the faithful better understand, that the holy spirit guides him even in this teaching and that the obedience we give is not the obedience of faith, but cleary flows from it.

You are wrong when you say that the teaching of the church on the death penalty is not part of the authentic magisterium. The church has time after time enunciated this teaching. Just because a teaching is part of an encyclical, or the catechism, you are not free to sweep it under the rug.

Frankly the approach you are taking is that of those on the left that claim they only have to obey the holy father when he is formally defining a doctrine. Also its the approach of those on the extreme right that reject Vatican II because it didn’t formally define any doctirine.

 

[Hadrianus]

In his letter to the American Bishops, 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger acting as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated that a diversity of opinion among Catholics upon the application of the death penalty as well as Just War theory was permissible.

This is the most recent authoritative statement of the Church and must be seen as expressing the will of the Pope in his authentic magisterium and as a correct interpretative key for preceding documents. There is little question that the Church favors the reduction in use of the death penalty in contemporary society, but it does not exclude it completely, and as with the question of war, leaves freedom for a diversity of opinions in given circumstances.