Another kind of Cafeteria Catholic?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

As I’ve stated previously, I suppose whether one might disagree or not, perhaps could depend on one’s belief of what Christ meant when He said thou shalt not kill and you have heard it was said an eye for eye BUT.

We know what Christ meant by this by looking at what the Church Teaches, especially in the case of self-defense.

Or by how one chooses to define the words, “practically nonexistent”, as to degree of their support.

I think there is one more way to look at it. It would be does one actually believe the words “practically nonexistent”. By looking at crime statistics from inside prison I would argue that the Catechism got that point wrong.

But by using the words “practically nonexistent” and in light of Pope Benedict’s statement, faithful Catholics can disagree with this opinion from the Catechism.

If any one disagrees with me on this I suggest you write the pope then as you are disagreeing with him.

 

[CMatt25]

We know what Christ meant by this by looking at what the Church Teaches, especially in the case of self-defense.

I think there is one more way to look at it. It would be does one actually believe the words “practically nonexistent”. By looking at crime statistics from inside prison I would argue that the Catechism got that point wrong.

But by using the words “practically nonexistent” and in light of Pope Benedict’s statement, faithful Catholics can disagree with this opinion from the Catechism.

If any one disagrees with me on this I suggest you write the pope then as you are disagreeing with him.

Maybe I will since I wasn’t aware even those considered among the most faithful could dissent from catechism. Peace.

 

[Faith3Faith]

whats wrong with the Death Penalty ? Wasn’t the Catholic Church OK with the Death Penalty all throughout its 2000 year history ?

 

[estesbob]

whats wrong with the Death Penalty ? Wasn’t the Catholic Church OK with the Death Penalty all throughout its 2000 year history ?

Yes. It still is. This topic is almost always rooted in politics. An attempt by those who support pro-abortion candidates to try and draw a moral equivalence between that and supporting the Death Penalty

 

[CMatt25]

Yes. It still is. This topic is almost always rooted in politics. An attempt by those who support pro-abortion candidates to try and draw a moral equivalence between that and supporting the Death Penalty

Or on the otherhand perhaps an attempt by those with a conservative bend rooted into their politics. An attempt by those who more or less generally support the death penalty in far greater cases than merely the “very rare” or “practically non-existent” ones. To try to justify their support of the state killing of born human beings as being “ok” by choosing which parts of the Catechism are opinion or even which are incorrect.

His Holiness Pope John Paul II on October 11, 1992, in yr 14 of the Holy Father’s Pontificate, in the Apostolic constitution known as Fidei Depositum, had this to say about the doctrinal value of the Catechism text:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.”

So the Holy Father states the Catechism is a statement of faith and doctrine, a certain vehicle for teaching.

Yet some who might consider themselves more faithful than others, and even perhaps tout how others need to be properly catechized, appear themselves to choose what in CCC is not valid for teaching and instead what is opinion or incorrect.

It is no wonder then in such a case why to some it might appear these folk are in that same cafeteria line in which they often place others into.

May God bless each of you along your journeys and peace be with you.

 

[Ender]

So the Holy Father states the Catechism is a statement of faith and doctrine, a certain vehicle for teaching.

Yes, this is a very sensible argument. It does not, however, address the issue directly nor does it account for the fact that, despite JPII’s comment about the Catechism, a number of cardinals and bishops appear to have reservations about section 2267.

Yet some who might consider themselves more faithful than others, and even perhaps tout how others need to be properly catechized, appear themselves to choose what in CCC is not valid for teaching and instead what is opinion or incorrect.

I doubt that the cardinals and bishops who have a different understanding of 2267 than you do so because they feel themselves more faithful than others. I’m guessing its because they have looked at the content of that section and recognize it for what it is: a prudential opinion. Is it really possible to read the third statement in 2267 about the capabilities of modern penal systems and understand that as anything other than an opinion? That is surely not a theological conclusion.

Ender

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, this is a very sensible argument. It does not, however, address the issue directly nor does it account for the fact that, despite JPII’s comment about the Catechism, a number of cardinals and bishops appear to have reservations about section 2267.

I doubt that the cardinals and bishops who have a different understanding of 2267 than you do so because they feel themselves more faithful than others. I’m guessing its because they have looked at the content of that section and recognize it for what it is: a prudential opinion. Is it really possible to read the third statement in 2267 about the capabilities of modern penal systems and understand that as anything other than an opinion? That is surely not a theological conclusion.

Ender

Ender, thank you for your comment about the “argument” I presented. I merely pulled the issue right from the catechism that many who consider themselves perhaps more faithful than some of the rest of us say is the same catechism the rest of us perhaps need to be more properly catechized on. I was not necessarily referring to strictly bishops and cardinals. And I simply added JP’s words alongside. I however can’t speak for those bishops and cardinals who may disagree with the late Holy Father by having reservations despite what he said. In any case Merry Christmas!

 

[estesbob]

• While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.* * 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

Given the clear direction given by the Pope were are faced with two alternativers:

1. The Pope is rejecting the teachings of the Church
2. Those who tell us that the church and or the cathecism forbids the death Penalty are flat out wrong.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Another question is are the other inmates and the staff and guards that work in the prison not also a part of society? Inmates in prison commit all manner of crimes upon other inmates, staff, and guards. So is locking criminals away protecting society?

Also with gangs some inmates are able to continue to run their criminal enterprises from the prison.

So again, does just locking up criminals really protect society?

This is part of the question that must be answered when considering the death penalty.

In many prisons the guards are also corrupt

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

In many prisons the guards are also corrupt

I do not judge what I can not see or know, so I can not agree with you. All I can say is that, yes there is evidence that some guards are corrupt, does that mean that they are not part of society and therefore not worthy of the protection of the government?

To say that would be unjust.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

I do not judge what I can not see or know, so I can not agree with you. All I can say is that, yes there is evidence that some guards are corrupt, does that mean that they are not part of society and therefore not worthy of the protection of the government?

To say that would be unjust.

Everyone deserves protection, but i’m simply pointing out that just because an inmate attacks a guard doesn’t justify the use of the death penalty for all you know the guard might have started it first and simply chose not to report it.

 

[Ender]

Everyone deserves protection, but i’m simply pointing out that just because an inmate attacks a guard doesn’t justify the use of the death penalty for all you know the guard might have started it first and simply chose not to report it.

The issue isn’t whether every fight or even every killing deserves the death penalty; the question is whether, in general, capital punishment should be commonly, rarely, or never used and on what basis that decision should be made. So far, the arguments that it should be rarely or never used have been unconvincing.

Ender

 

[hxcCatholic413]

The issue isn’t whether every fight or even every killing deserves the death penalty; the question is whether, in general, capital punishment should be commonly, rarely, or never used and on what basis that decision should be made. So far, the arguments that it should be rarely or never used have been unconvincing.

Ender

I’ve read several of your posts in the past Ender and I know how you support the use of the death penalty, but i’m going to call a spade a spade “you can’t be pro-life and for the death penalty” that’s all there is to it, there is no reply that you can give to me that can refute what I just quoted. God Bless!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’ve read several of your posts in the past Ender and I know how you support the use of the death penalty, but i’m going to call a spade a spade “you can’t be pro-life and for the death penalty” that’s all there is to it, there is no reply that you can give to me that can refute what I just quoted. God Bless!

Yes there is. For me being pro-life is the protection of the rights of the innocent. It is also being against an intrinsic evil, abortion, euthanasia.

The current pope has acknowledged that Catholics are free to disagree on the death penalty.

There really is nothing you can give that can refute these two points.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Yes there is. For me being pro-life is the protection of the rights of the innocent. It is also being against an intrinsic evil, abortion, euthanasia.

The current pope has acknowledged that Catholics are free to disagree on the death penalty.

There really is nothing you can give that can refute these two points.

What kind of Christian would even want to support the death (“legal” murder) of an inmate in the first place?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

It really does come down to prudential judgment. Does an execution of the guilty protect society from harm better than any permissible alternatives?

You might say that prison breaks are so rare that those incarcerated don’t threaten society anymore. [But] even with all that money flowing in the prisons aren’t orderly or safe institutions. Smuggling, criminal trafficking, contracts for murder, drug abuse, sodomy, battery, assault, and rape are all routine occurrences among inmates. We tend to overlook the fact that criminals still have human rights while incarcerated. We still have an obligation to justice while they are in our care. Even a man lawfully and justly scheduled for execution tomorrow must be protected from being assaulted, raped, or murdered by other inmates (or guards).

If a sentence of life in prison merely means that a murderer or rapist is restricted to attempting to murder or rape other inmates then it seems logical to me that execution IS still necessary to protect people from being victimized by the repetition of the criminal’s hideous offense. Furthermore, if criminals are discernibly emboldened by the prospect of life in prison being the ceiling of punishment rather than execution I’d think this should also be taken into consideration.

• Marty Lund

These are good points, but none of them can possibly ever suffice as arguments for the death penalty:

Murderers and child rapists aren’t the only dangerous men in prison; executing everyone we can find a plausible excuse to execute, therefore, won’t solve the problem of violence/abuse in prisons, whereas a practical solution to the problem would also obliterate the need to execute the ones we can justify executing in the first place.

See?

The primary objective of punishment (and this would include capital punishment) is not the protection of society but the redress of the disorder caused by the crime. That is, it is retribution - the demand of justice - that must be satisfied whether or not it is necessary for the protection of society.

I don’t think the Catechism actually contradicts the truth that the primary objective of punishment is the redress of the disorder caused by the crime.

It’s just that executing someone doesn’t bring his or her victim back. We can’t achieve true justice with capital punishment.

Well there is simply no doubt that the first part of 2267 is factually incorrect.

No, it’s not - not even by your standards. I’ll explain:

*The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. *(2267)

As Kevin L. Flannery S.J. (Professor, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome) points out, this claim is incorrect.

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.

I don’t deny your point that older Catholic teaching does not contain the restriction found in the Catechism. But that doesn’t make the Catechism incorrect. 2267’s main clause is “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude … recourse to the death penalty,” which is true.

It then specifies one condition under which traditional Catholic teaching doesn’t exclude the death penalty (practical need for society’s defense), but notice that it doesn’t rule out other conditions that justify it.

Saying the Catechism excludes the death penalty here except when the condition it specifies is met, is like saying Matt. 1:25 proves Mary had other children after Jesus.

Beyond that, the entire justifying position of 2267 appears based on the concept of self-defense and the principle of double effect, and that appears to be incorrect as well.

I do acknowledge, however, that the way the Catholic Church speaks about the death penalty today is a significant departure from past centuries.

This is not a bad thing, though. Much of it can be traced to the influence of personalist philosophy in the twentieth century. Support for the death penalty that comes from Catholics today is usually socially anachronistic and unbefittingly retributive.

 

[canadianguy1143]

What kind of Christian would even want to support the death (“legal” murder) of an inmate in the first place?

The kind of Catholic that follows the teachings of the Catholic Faith.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think the Catechism actually contradicts the truth that the primary objective of punishment is the redress of the disorder caused by the crime.

“Actually contradicts” is an interesting phrase. 2267 simply ignores the primary objective.

It’s just that executing someone doesn’t bring his or her victim back. We can’t achieve true justice with capital punishment.

Since no punishment will bring the victim back to life the logic of your argument is that murderers should not be punished.

I don’t deny your point that older Catholic teaching does not contain the restriction found in the Catechism. But that doesn’t make the Catechism incorrect. 2267’s main clause is “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude … recourse to the death penalty,” which is true.

Don’t be disingenuous; you can’t simply ignore half the sentence. The claim 2267 makes about the traditional teaching of the Church is flatly wrong. The restriction it specifies never existed.

It then specifies one condition under which traditional Catholic teaching doesn’t exclude the death penalty (practical need for society’s defense), but notice that it doesn’t rule out other conditions that justify it.

Once again you have to play with the meaning of words to reach this conclusion. 2267 implies that only protection justifies capital punishment and if it is not required for protection then its use is not justified. The problem of course is that protection is a only secondary objective of punishment and it is the primary objective that justifies the punishment.

I do acknowledge, however, that the way the Catholic Church speaks about the death penalty today is a significant departure from past centuries.

Yes, at least we can agree on that much. It is also a significant departure from other traditional concepts such as punishment, justice, expiation, …

This is not a bad thing, though. Much of it can be traced to the influence of personalist philosophy in the twentieth century. Support for the death penalty that comes from Catholics today is usually socially anachronistic and unbefittingly retributive.

Stick to the arguments being made and don’t generalize about what you think “Catholics today” want.

Ender

 

[shockerfan]

What kind of Christian would even want to support the death (“legal” murder) of an inmate in the first place?

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario that is very possible:

Mexico arrests one of their drug kingpins. They put this kingpin in jail. From his jail cell, he is able to direct the murder of the politicians who put him there. As he lives, he is able to order the murder of more and more people.

Here is a real scenario from a program I watched on National Geographic: Two white supremacist gang leaders were able to direct the murder of another inmate in another prison from their jail cell in a maximum security prison, using various communication methods, including code and a network of sympathetic prisoners. They also directed the murder of an inmate’s family.

In both scenarios, the death penalty would protect innocent people from the deadly reach of these prisoners.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

Let me give you a hypothetical scenario that is very possible:

Mexico arrests one of their drug kingpins. They put this kingpin in jail. From his jail cell, he is able to direct the murder of the politicians who put him there. As he lives, he is able to order the murder of more and more people.

Here is a real scenario from a program I watched on National Geographic: Two white supremacist gang leaders were able to direct the murder of another inmate in another prison from their jail cell in a maximum security prison, using various communication methods, including code and a network of sympathetic prisoners. They also directed the murder of an inmate’s family.

In both scenarios, the death penalty would protect innocent people from the deadly reach of these prisoners.

I feel that it is quite ironic that you are supporting the use of the death penalty when your signature says “Pro-Choice Christians: Giving Christ a bad name since 1973”…hmmm intriguing indeed. For the first scenario you mentioned the solution is to send a chaplain into his cell he could be easily convinced that Christ is the answer instead of resorting to his execution (it’s good to think these things out before jumping to opinions). You didn’t give me enough information on the second scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if the guards were in on it to begin with. God Bless!