Another look at the DEATH PENALTY

[Ender]

What Dulles clearly said was that this is not just the Pope’s opinion but also the opinion of the Bishops. It is a prudential conclusion concerning faith and morals. Which makes it similar in nature to the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception, or gay rights. Or, if you prefer something slightly less emotional, the belief in monogenism, or any other issue contained in the catechism but not infallibly declared.

There are three levels of teaching: infallible, ordinary, and prudential. The teaching on artificial contraception is ordinary as are most of the teachings in the Catechism. We are required to give the obedience of faith to infallible teachings and religious assent to ordinary teachings (892-893) but there is no assent of any kind required for prudential opinions regardless of the topic. The teaching in 2267 is neither infallible nor ordinary and is therefore not binding on Catholics.

That this is so is abundantly clear from these quotes:

USCCB 2005: *"The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation "

• It is irrational to assume that the bishops would offer neither judgment nor condemnation on any moral issue binding on faithful Catholics.

Ratzinger 2004: *"**There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty"
*This is all I have said: I have a different opinion about the application of the death penalty.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I agree that Catholics whose well-formed conscience leads them to dissent from a teaching of the Church are bound thereby to dissent from that teaching. The issue is in pretending they are not dissenting.

No body is “pretending”. That is a condescending misrepresentation. The term “teaching” is normal restricted to teaching on faith and morals. If the Vatican observatory came out with scientific teaching and another scientist found a flaw in the teaching, I do not think it would be considered dissent.

 

[TMC]

No body is “pretending”. That is a condescending misrepresentation. The term “teaching” is normal restricted to teaching on faith and morals. If the Vatican observatory came out with scientific teaching and another scientist found a flaw in the teaching, I do not think it would be considered dissent.

Are you saying that the teaching that life should be allowed to proceed from contraception to natural death is not a teaching on faith and morals?

 

[Ender]

The death penalty may be applied where it is necessary. Where it is not necessary, then the infliction thereof is a breach of faith and morals.

“Necessary” is a slippery word in this context. I will agree that no punishment should be applied that is unjust.

necessity does not imply any requirement for the state to impliment the wrath of G_d.

Actually, this is precisely what the state is required to do: *“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 (Rom 13:4) of the earthly prince that ‘he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.’” *(Aquinas)

The necessity is purely a matter of protecting the population from a dangerous creature.

The primary purpose of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the sin; that is, justice both requires and justifies punishment. If the punishment also protects the population that is good but that does not justify it. Protection alone would allow harsher punishment for lesser crimes; it is justice that forbids it.

Ender

 

[Nino]

I think its horrible that an admitted murderer of say 3 innocent people gets to go to prison…eat three meals a day…have clean laundry,books to read.a roof over his head…as a reward…why some 17% of the worlds population dont have it so good…and if/when he kills again in prison…what then and who is responsible for that…Jesus did NOT yell down from the cross…‘hey fellas,I forgave this good thief so let him go’ no he permitted the authorities to go on with their sentence…and its not the ‘death penalty’ its capital punishment…a huge difference…but the use of subliminal seduction goes on …after all is a serial killer one who is involved directly in population control?.Notice how now a prostitute is called a ‘sex worker’…gee how clever …drugs were once called ‘dope’ then changed to charming names like ‘pot’…the fingers victory salute during ww2 meant victory at all costs…that was changed during nam to mean peace at all cost!!!Words are important…and back to the prison bit…the cost of lodging these killers is in the thousands yearly…how many poor kids could be given a better chance in life if that money was used for them…but to no avail…hollyweird had produced movies portraying cons has sympathetic folks since the 1930s…while the prison guards and wardens has the true criminals…and this brain washing has worked…have a good day…

 

[TMC]

I think its horrible that an admitted murderer of say 3 innocent people gets to go to prison…eat three meals a day

I think it is unconscienable that one man judge another’s life to have no remaining value.

Jesus did NOT yell down from the cross…‘hey fellas,I forgave this good thief so let him go’ no he permitted the authorities to go on with their sentence.

Do you seriously think that the Crucifixion is an argument in favor of the death penalty? Christ did not speak directly on the issue of contraception, or homosexuality, or abortion, but He spoke directly on the issue of the death penalty. I don’t remember Him being in favor of it.

 

[Sheeniac]

If, as you say, you love your Church, why are you so willing to turn your back on the words of a single nitwit with tenure who seems willing to say anything for grant money?

Having actually met Dr. Lott, I can say that you are way off base here. Personal attacks make for a poor argument.

 

[Holly3278]

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is quite clear. It is wrong in just about every case.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

“Necessary” is a slippery word in this context. I will agree that no punishment should be applied that is unjust.

It is quite clear from the context of the item, that ‘necessary’ means that the state has not the resources to imlpiment an alternnative measure which will effectively protect the population.

Actually, this is precisely what the state is required to do: "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 (Rom 13:4) of the earthly prince that 'he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.’" (Aquinas)

What we have in the item is an assertion that the words of Paul are here superceded. If they were not, then the item has no place in the catechism, as it clearly contradicts Paul’s teachging, the latter which then must be seen as having been a prudential teaching, based on the politics of the day, so are now not in accord with present context.

The primary purpose of punishment is redressing the disorder caused by the sin; that is, justice both requires and justifies punishment.  If the punishment also protects the population that is good but that does not justify it.  Protection alone would allow harsher punishment for lesser crimes; it is justice that forbids it.

Ender

The teachings of Paul MUST be seen in the context of the zeitgeist.
Paul would have been quite happy with the Shariah law of the Taliban, indeed, he happily applied it.
Those days are thankfully gone, and not missed by Christians.

To find the teachings of Our Lord, we need to examine the Gospel, and then apply the test given by Our Lord:
‘By their fruits will ye know them.’

 

[fix]

What Dulles clearly said was that this is not just the Pope’s opinion but also the opinion of the Bishops. It is a prudential conclusion concerning faith and morals. Which makes it similar in nature to the Church’s teachings on artificial contraception, or gay rights.

How is that similar in any way?

 

[pnewton]

Are you saying that the teaching that life should be allowed to proceed from contraception to natural death is not a teaching on faith and morals?

Boy, you sure jumped. Of course I did not say that. That teaching has to be taken within the context it is given, that of abortion and euthanasia. The Church also allows the taking of life in the case of a just war and in legitimate self-defense. Historically, the church has always taught that life should proceed from conception to natural death but has used the death penalty herself.

 

[TMC]

How is that similar in any way?

It is similar in that it is a teaching on faith and morals codified in the catechism, but never declared infallible by a Pope or Council. It can be disregarded to the same extent that those teachings may be disregarded.

Boy, you sure jumped. Of course I did not say that. That teaching has to be taken within the context it is given, that of abortion and euthanasia. The Church also allows the taking of life in the case of a just war and in legitimate self-defense. Historically, the church has always taught that life should proceed from conception to natural death but has used the death penalty herself.

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is abundantly clear. Catholics are not free to support any use of the death penalty, it may only be used when no other means to protect the safety of others is available. The fact that it may be used on some rare occasions is no more a free license to apply the death penalty then the fact that NFP may be used to space children is a free license to avoid procreation in the marriage act.

The fact the Church used to believe otherwise is not relevant to what the Church teaches today. The Church has abandoned a number of positions that we now realize are inconsistent with Christ’s teachings. This is one of them.

I realize this is a difficult teaching for many to accept. I realize that some cannot accept it. But this is what the catechism teaches. It is not merely the Pope’s opinion. I am not saying that reasonable people can’t disagree on the issue. I am asking that we be clear and honest and admit that disagreeing with this teaching is disagreeing with the Church.

 

[pnewton]

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is abundantly clear. Catholics are not free to support any use of the death penalty, it may only be used when no other means to protect the safety of others is available.

If it is wo abundantly clear, why do you descibe it in contradictory sentences.

1. Catholics are not free to support any use of the death penatly.
2. It may only be used where no other means…

BTW, i have never heard the first proposition in Church teaching. Can you show us where someone in authority stated that Catholics can no longer support any use of the death penalty, or is this just your opinion?

The fact the Church used to believe otherwise is not relevant to what the Church teaches today. The Church has abandoned a number of positions that we now realize are inconsistent with Christ’s teachings. This is one of them.

Not very well guided by the Holy Spirit if moral teaching has to be reversed. The Church has never abandoned moral teaching. What she has done is developed doctrine more fully and applied teaching differently as society changes.

 

[TMC]

If it is wo abundantly clear, why do you descibe it in contradictory sentences.

1. Catholics are not free to support any use of the death penatly.
2. It may only be used where no other means…

BTW, i have never heard the first proposition in Church teaching. Can you show us where someone in authority stated that Catholics can no longer support any use of the death penalty, or is this just your opinion?

I’m sorry, I was not being abudantly clear. What I meant was that Catholics are only free to support the death penalty under the conditions listed in 2, not that they may not ever support the use of the death penalty.

Not very well guided by the Holy Spirit if moral teaching has to be reversed. The Church has never abandoned moral teaching. What she has done is developed doctrine more fully and applied teaching differently as society changes.

This is truly a topic for another thread. I don’t think it matters if you call this a “change” a “reversal” a “development” or an “evolution,” although I know that is important to some people. What matters is the Church’s teaching today.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Total abolition and forbidding of the death penalty has NEVER been the teaching of the Catholic Church.

There is a big difference between keeping the death penalty to an absolute minimum and total banning of the death penalty.

Let us not deliberately get so caught up in our personal moral debates that we misstate the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Ender]

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is abundantly clear.

The meaning of the teaching is clear; my argument has been about the nature of the teaching - that it is prudential and not ordinary.

Catholics are not free to support any use of the death penalty

Your statement is refuted by every comment I have read from Church officials (and quoted in previous posts). If you can quote a Church source saying that the teaching on capital punishment is not prudential I should like to see it. I have already provided several that say otherwise (and there are other sources I have not cited because the writers are not bishops.)

The fact the Church used to believe otherwise is not relevant to what the Church teaches today. The Church has abandoned a number of positions that we now realize are inconsistent with Christ’s teachings. This is one of them.

Did you miss the comment from Cardinal Dulles where he said that Church doctrine on this subject has not changed; that it is today what it always has been?

I realize this is a difficult teaching for many to accept. I realize that some cannot accept it. But this is what the catechism teaches. It is not merely the Pope’s opinion. I am not saying that reasonable people can’t disagree on the issue. I am asking that we be clear and honest and admit that disagreeing with this teaching is disagreeing with the Church.

You have done nothing more than restate your position without even addressing the quotes I provided. Why should anyone accept your understanding of the nature of this teaching over that of the USCCB and Cardinals Dulles and … ummm … Ratzinger?

Ender

 

[fix]

It is similar in that it is a teaching on faith and morals codified in the catechism, but never declared infallible by a Pope or Council. It can be disregarded to the same extent that those teachings may be disregarded.

I am missing your point? As one exmple the teaching on contraception is infallible and binding. This is clear from many sources including Paul the VI who said it was intrinsically wrong. The ordinary and universal magisterium speaking on these matters is not offering an opinion.

But the Church’s motherhood can never in fact be separated from her teaching mission, which she must always carry out as the faithful Bride of Christ, who is the Truth in person. “As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm… The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. In obedience to the truth which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all people of good will, without concealing its demands of radicalness and perfection”.149…

Veritatis splendor

 

[melensdad]

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is quite clear. It is wrong in just about every case.

Having looked over the passage in the CCC a couple dozen times, I tend to agree with you that the Church feels that the application of the penalty is not needed, and those times when it is needed are very rare. However, if John Lott’s argument, as quoted in the first post of this thread, is correct, then it seems very clear that the Church may want to reconsider its considered position.

Reading the CCC, it seems that the purpose of the Church’s general opposition to the modern application of the death penalty is because there are other ways to preserve the safety of the state. But it may be that the Church has used incorrect data to come to that conclusion. If so, then it really would be valid for the Church to reconsider its position.

For the record, I oppose the death penalty, but I have to wonder if my beliefs are now correct?

 

[SoCalRC]

You calim to understand why I am skeptical of statistics but continue to throw out more statements. What is the difference between you and Lott.

Well, I use real numbers, not make them up. And I don’t create a bunch of extra user names to jump in and support my points and talk about how great my posts are…

Oh, and I don’t plagerize…

Most importantly, I encourage people to think for themselves. I gave you Lott’s statistics and just compared them to what he said. Don’t get mad at me if they don’t add up!

 

[SoCalRC]

Having actually met Dr. Lott, I can say that you are way off base here. Personal attacks make for a poor argument.

I’m attacking his work as a researcher and a scientist, not as a child of God.

It isn’t me that has deemed that his work is unpreproducable, that was some of his most famous peers - and a court of law.

Similiarly, he was the one that created fictional online personalities to applaud himself. Likewise, he was the one who decided to lie about the practice when first caught. Having finally admitted it (when confronted with overwhelming evidence), it hardly seems unfair to point out the implications regarding his character.

I just pointed out that, even in the opinion piece in question, his own statistics and charts do not match his stated conclussions. You cannot claim to have a growing racial discrepency in your figures and then claim that they somehow disprove the existance of a racial discrepency - unless you are simply pandering to people who already hold psuedo certain beliefs.