Wonderfully vague isn’t it? Does it specifically address paragraph 2267? Certainly it doesn’t mean " anything goes" does it?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.
I dispute this claim and am in very good company in believing it is prudential and not doctrinal. Nor is this teaching even 30 years old but barely half that.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.
This new “teaching” first appeared in 1995. The teachings I have been referencing first appeared in an official Church document in 405 (Pope St. Innocent I) and was accepted, repeated and expanded upon for the next 1590 years. What the Church has time after time enunciated is not this teaching but the teaching that the death penalty is a just form of punishment. Nor had she ever tied its use to the need for protection.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.
The approach I have taken is to cite the traditional teaching of the Church that remained unchanged for nearly 2000 years. Nothing about your comment applies to the arguments I have been making. Every claim I have made is supported by the citation of a position expressed by an important Church figure, including a half dozen earlier popes, all the previous catechisms, and the vast majority of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.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 doctrine.
It is surely not so vague as to be meaningless. Nor was there any need for it to specifically address 2267; Cardinal Ratzinger was surely aware of that section when he wrote his memo. The only vagueness in his comment is this: was he saying that people could legitimately disagree over whether the circumstances of a specific prisoner met the conditions specified in 2267 that allowed capital punishment or was he saying that there could be a legitimate diversity of opinion about whether those were the right conditions to consider? If you want to make a point about the applicability of this memo, that’s the question you should have raised.Wonderfully vague isn’t it? Does it specifically address paragraph 2267? Certainly it doesn’t mean " anything goes" does it?
So it is vague with regard to the only live question in this thread right now; it didn’t specifically address 2267.It is surely not so vague as to be meaningless. Nor was there any need for it to specifically address 2267; Cardinal Ratzinger was surely aware of that section when he wrote his memo. The only vagueness in his comment is this: was he saying that people could legitimately disagree over whether the circumstances of a specific prisoner met the conditions specified in 2267 that allowed capital punishment or was he saying that there could be a legitimate diversity of opinion about whether those were the right conditions to consider?
Ender
…and I don’t see anyone disputing that it is. 2267 does not argue that the death penalty is not a just form of punishment.What the Church has time after time enunciated is not this teaching but the teaching that the death penalty is a just form of punishment.
Aquinas raises the issue and then resolves it.Why not clear the mud out of the waters and focus only on what 2267 actually does say–i.e., regarding capital punishment, the question is *when *rather than *if *.
Fair enough. As I’ve conceded to you *several *times already–and I’m not sure anyone else is arguing against you on this, either–*if *you go *outside *the Catechism (the most recent edition of it), you have an argument.Aquinas raises the issue and then resolves it.
"There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But* in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy.***" (ST II-II 67 4,1)
Objection … “Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin.”
Reply … "On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by the divine law as appears from what we have said above." (ST II-II 108, 3,3)
Ender
I am not aware of others. There are a number mentioned in other parts of the OT but Gen 9:6 is unique in the status the Church has given it.Out of curiosity, what other sin-punishment pairs are provided for by divine law? Or is it just the murder-death penalty pair?
Circumstances alter all cases that don’t involve intrinsic evil. In that same section I cited above Aquinas continued with this: "Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. But sometimes the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death may be inflicted on sinners."Also, if it’s truly mandated, how is 2267 not heresy? Where is there really room for “a diversity of opinion”?
When I read the Catechism, it strikes me as pretty clear one way. I’m happy to accept that bringing into play everything else makes it not so simple. To me, though, it sounds like a lot of Doublespeak.I am not aware of others. There are a number mentioned in other parts of the OT but Gen 9:6 is unique in the status the Church has given it.
Circumstances alter all cases that don’t involve intrinsic evil. In that same section I cited above Aquinas continued with this: "Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. But sometimes the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death may be inflicted on sinners."
He clearly acknowledges that there are other issues involved beyond an adherence to what justice would normally require. If there are overriding concerns about applying the death penalty, it should not be applied. That seems to have been JPII’s understanding of the situation. Not applying capital punishment would: *“better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good.” *That is a prudential judgment that does not conflict with Church doctrine.
Ender
As I said before, the catechism is a synopsis of Catholic doctrine; it is the Reader’s Digest abridged version. That’s not to say it isn’t valid, only that it cannot possibly contain 2000 years of teaching and thought on all Catholic doctrine. Knowing that, it really is a bit much to suggest that bringing in the fullness of that teaching sounds like doublespeak.When I read the Catechism, it strikes me as pretty clear one way. I’m happy to accept that bringing into play everything else makes it not so simple. To me, though, it sounds like a lot of Doublespeak.
That the death penalty has become a political issue does not change the moral questions that surround its use and as they are moral questions it is clearly appropriate to look to Church doctrine. All of it; not just one paragraph in the new catechism.That the murder-death penalty pair is so widely know, but I never hear of any others, makes me think that its current importance is more a matter of politics than religion and morality (not your politics/religion, but that of our culture).
That’s not the problem, though. Surely, even if the catechism is only an abridged version, it should be in agreement with Church teaching. 2260 through 2267, taken on their own, leads to a different conclusion than what you’re suggesting Church teaching taken as a whole comes to. That’s the problem.As I said before, the catechism is a synopsis of Catholic doctrine; it is the Reader’s Digest abridged version. That’s not to say it isn’t valid, only that it cannot possibly contain 2000 years of teaching and thought on all Catholic doctrine.
You say it’s a bit much…I say it’s about right. Your presentation of Aquinas in the last couple of posts perfectly represents what I’m getting at.Knowing that, it really is a bit much to suggest that bringing in the fullness of that teaching sounds like doublespeak.
It’s not just one paragraph. It’s the entirety of the current edition of the Catechism.That the death penalty has become a political issue does not change the moral questions that surround its use and as they are moral questions it is clearly appropriate to look to Church doctrine. All of it; not just one paragraph in the new catechism.