Another look at the DEATH PENALTY

[Ray_Scheel]

And the Church teaches that “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

This is incorrect. That particular statement has been clarified as prudential in nature so many times now that I have to wonder why you have repeated the inaccurate claim that it constitutes actual Church teaching. “The Church” does not teach that; it was the opinion of JP II.

According to actual Church teaching, the authority to make the determination of how often execution is necessary in a particular circumstance belongs only to the State. JP II’s personal opinion has no official bearing, and an infallible document of Vatican I prevents him from making such a claim in his official capacity.

 

[TMC]

This is incorrect. That particular statement has been clarified as prudential in nature so many times now that I have to wonder why you have repeated the inaccurate claim that it constitutes actual Church teaching. “The Church” does not teach that; it was the opinion of JP II.

According to actual Church teaching, the authority to make the determination of how often execution is necessary in a particular circumstance belongs only to the State. JP II’s personal opinion has no official bearing, and an infallible document of Vatican I prevents him from making such a claim in his official capacity.

Is the catechism not “actual Church teaching”? What else in there is personal opinion that we are free to discard? Last time I checked the catechism is not merely the opinion of a man acting in his personal capacity.

 

[juliamajor]

Yes, and it is justice alone that validates punishment, and it is to satisfy the requirements of justice that the death penalty is still required.
No one has argued for such an approach. You weaken your own position by disparaging those who support capital punishment. It indicates a lack of familiarity with the topic if that’s the strongest comment one can make.

Ender

No-that’s not what i’m saying- but what constitutes justice? eye for eye- As for familiarity- how many prisons have you been in(visiting I mean!!).

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

Then I suggest you first take that up with the UN, which aside from a few wildcards resoundingly condemns the use of prisoners for medical experimentation.

I was speaking in the context of euthanasia.
I was expecting these hopeless cases to volunteer, that they might find release, or atonement.

You really, really need to learn how to post without resorting to trying the cheap shots so frequently if you want to be taken seriously.

DP supporters take cheap swipes at Old Europe.
Then shock-horror when someone responds in kind.

No, I have not. Your repetitive misstatements about what I and other posters have said has grown quite tiresome

See above.

Do you really think stuff like this causes people to not notice how desperately you are avoiding the questions that have been posed to you that you have repeatedly used desperate or absolutely rotten measures to try to avoid answering directly?

I have posted repeatedly that vengeance can never be the motive for DP, but that is what the majority of DP proponents, if they are honest, are falling back on.
JPII believed that self defence was not a valid argument in a civilized country.
I believe that as with the rabid dog, hoplessly irreformable cases shoulfd be offered euthanasia, but in a useful form.

 

[pnewton]

JPII believed that self defence was not a valid argument in a civilized country.

And it was on this point that he was opposed to the death penalty. I believe he was wrong and have never been able to resolve the conflict between his opinion and mine. I have tried for quite a while. I truly believe his opinion was based more on optimism than fact.

 

[Ender]

Is the catechism not “actual Church teaching”? What else in there is personal opinion that we are free to discard? Last time I checked the catechism is not merely the opinion of a man acting in his personal capacity.

No one has claimed that the catechism is merely opinion; the claim was that the section on the death penalty (2267) is the personal opinion of JPII. That claim is based on the statements of Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB, among others.

Ender

 

[TMC]

No one has claimed that the catechism is merely opinion; the claim was that the section on the death penalty (2267) is the personal opinion of JPII. That claim is based on the statements of Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB, among others.

Ender

That seems internally contradictory. If the catechism is not merely opinion then 2267 is not merely personal opinion. If 2267 is merely personal opinion, what other parts are merely opinion and how do we tell?

And when did Cardinal Ratzinger ever say this was merely a personal opinion? When the catechism was finalized in Latin in 1997 2267 was made stricter, not less so. This was Cardinal Ratzinger’s work. As Cardinal he commented that there can be a difference of opinion on when the exception allowing the death penalty applies, but I have never seen any document or statement from him that the principle that the death penalty should be used only when no other means is sufficient is a personal opinion. In fact this in 1997 he said that 2267 “does not categorically say that it [the legitimate imposition of the death penalty] is impossible, but it gives objective criteria which make it practically impossible for all of them to be met.”

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I was speaking in the context of euthanasia.
I was expecting these hopeless cases to volunteer, that they might find release, or atonement.

Again, take it up with the UN, which aside from a few wildcards resoundingly condemns the use of prisoners for medical experimentation, whether or not they are “volunteers”.

DP supporters take cheap swipes at Old Europe.
Then shock-horror when someone responds in kind.

And where exactly have they taken cheap swipes against Old Europe here? It is not a swipe at “Old Europe” to point out that you personally are consistently putting on airs against your opponents because they are not from Europe. You have taken cheap swipes against the States that utilize the DP in the majority of your posts in this and every single one of the prior DP threads you have participated in.

See above.

What, where you dodged the question again? Or are you saying that kind of juvenile snot-nosed behavior is the best you have to offer?

I have posted repeatedly that vengeance can never be the motive for DP, but that is what the majority of DP proponents, if they are honest, are falling back on.

Strawman. Further, considering it is based on your own (and often self-contradictory) opinion and frequent misrepresentations of actual Catholic beliefs and teaching (never mind your repeated demonstrations of ignorance as to what exactly is going on in the USA) , its a strawman that is not at all relevant in a discussion on a Catholic message board.

JPII believed that self defence was not a valid argument in a civilized country.

JP II never stated this, you have resorted to wholesale fiction about others you have no claim to in order to try to prop up your disintegration opinion in the absence of any desire on your part to do legitimate research or pay attention to facts that you have been pointed to repeatedly.

I believe that as with the rabid dog, hoplessly irreformable cases shoulfd be offered euthanasia, but in a useful form.

Again, take it up with the UN, which aside from a few wildcards resoundingly condemns the use of prisoners for medical experimentation, whether or not they are “volunteers”. To prevent possible abuses, we are not even allowed to utilize blood donations from prisoners or their organs for tissue transplant.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Is the catechism not “actual Church teaching”? What else in there is personal opinion that we are free to discard? Last time I checked the catechism is not merely the opinion of a man acting in his personal capacity.

The new CCC is guaranteed only to contain no errors. A personal belief along the lines of the quotation in question is not an error, what is an error is interpreting the inclusion of that quotation to mean that was the only allowable position on the subject, because of the fact that the Church has repeatedly taught that the authority to make that decision does not rest with the pope but with the State. At NO POINT did JP II or the new CCC ever say ANYTHING to indicate that he was formally reversing the clear and longstanding teaching of the church about where the actual authority on that matter rested, he simply stated his opinion.

To get particular, Ender then asked directly for a citation that such a position was not prudential in nature in post 56, which you have failed to provide. Your failure to locate such a source is quite understandable because there is no such source, but in that case there is no reason to doubt the sources Ender provided.

 

[TMC]

The new CCC is guaranteed only to contain no errors. A personal belief along the lines of the quotation in question is not an error, what is an error is interpreting the inclusion of that quotation to mean that was the only allowable position on the subject, because of the fact that the Church has repeatedly taught that the authority to make that decision does not rest with the pope but with the State. At NO POINT did JP II or the new CCC ever say ANYTHING to indicate that he was formally reversing the clear and longstanding teaching of the church about where the actual authority on that matter rested, he simply stated his opinion.

To get particular, Ender then asked directly for a citation that such a position was not prudential in nature in post 56, which you have failed to provide. Your failure to locate such a source is quite understandable because there is no such source, but in that case there is no reason to doubt the sources Ender provided.

Let me see if I understand your point. Are you saying that everything in the catechism can be disregarded unless you can find another document that declares that particular clause “not prudential”? And that you agree that 2267 is not in error, but that it is only an opinion and cannot be right or wrong? This point of view renders the entire catechism meaningless. Why wouldn’t this reasoning apply to the rest of the catechism?

The catechism is the teaching of the Church, where does anything say that it is not? John Paul didn’t consider it opinion:

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, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

The catechism does not say that the death penalty can never be legitimately applied. It does explain when it can be applied. The death penalty in the US does not conform to that standard.

 

[pnewton]

The death penalty in the US does not conform to that standard.

That’s the question, isn’t it? The catechism does not mention the US. I think the death penalty does conform to the standard.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

And it was on this point that he was opposed to the death penalty. [sign]Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
JPII believed that self defence was not a valid argument in a civilized country.[/sign]
I believe he was wrong and have never been able to resolve the conflict between his opinion and mine. I have tried for quite a while. I truly believe his opinion was based more on optimism than fact.

No.
That statement was correct, and a matter of faith and morals.
The incorrect judicial judgement was that some so called civilised countries had reached a sufficient level of civilization.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Let me see if I understand your point. Are you saying that everything in the catechism can be disregarded unless you can find another document that declares that particular clause “not prudential”?

~ Quite the opposite, it should be presumed to be applicable unless a conflict is found between something it contains and what is found in the broader scope that limits its applicability to a point htat it could only be a matter of opinion.

And that you agree that 2267 is not in error, but that it is only an opinion and cannot be right or wrong? This point of view renders the entire catechism meaningless. Why wouldn’t this reasoning apply to the rest of the catechism?

~ Because as far as I know the rest of the catechism doesn’t pose that sort of conflict with either the ordinary infallibility of the Church…

The catechism is the teaching of the Church, where does anything say that it is not? John Paul didn’t consider it opinion:

~ According to the limits Vatican I placed on the authority of the pope to promulgate teaching in conflict with ordinary infallibility, the Church has already spoken that such an attempt should only be personal opinion. This was not a matter of practice where a later pope could change what was done, but a teaching handed down by an ecumenical council.

The catechism does not say that the death penalty can never be legitimately applied. It does explain when it can be applied. The death penalty in the US does not conform to that standard.

~According to established Church teaching, the criteria it proposes are all within the scope of the authority of the State to decide. The Catechism makes no mention of the Church recalling that authority, which is quite correct in that the Church CANNOT do so.

 

[pnewton]

No.
That statement was correct, and a matter of faith and morals.

No it is not a matter of faith and morals. That is absurd. Guidelines and principles can be matter of faith and morals. Specific application can not. The Church would be hard pressed to say the death penalty is always wrong in all circumstances, because for 1900 years it has said the opposite. As long as there are some circumstances where the death penalty can be applied, then it is possible to beleive those circumstances exist.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

No it is not a matter of faith and morals. That is absurd. Guidelines and principles can be matter of faith and morals. Specific application can not. The Church would be hard pressed to say the death penalty is always wrong in all circumstances, because for 1900 years it has said the opposite. As long as there are some circumstances where the death penalty can be applied, then it is possible to beleive those circumstances exist.

Friend,
you selectively read the words of JPII.
He never claimed that the DP was ALWAYS immoral. only that it was immoral when not needed as the only feasible means of protecting society.
He markedly did not require that the DP was needed to execute retribution, thus setting aside the excuse in the OT, eye for eye, which Our Lord set aside.
His erroneous judgement was that all civilised countries were at a sufficient stage of civilisation as to not need the DP to protect society.
The primary judgement was a matter of faith and morals. That is, that the DP should be implimented only when absolutely necessary for the protection of society.
The erroneous prudential judgement was that some so called civilised countries had the will and the means to find the not easy alternative to the DP.

 

[pnewton]

The primary judgement was a matter of faith and morals. That is, that the DP should be implimented only when absolutely necessary for the protection of society.
The erroneous prudential judgement was that some so called civilised countries had the will and the means to find the not easy alternative to the DP.

Gotha. I accept the Church teaching ont the first, even if I may not totally agree. It is in fact the second point that I have had my issues with. I do not think it many cases we have an effective alternative.

 

[Ender]

Are you saying that everything in the catechism can be disregarded unless you can find another document that declares that particular clause “not prudential”?

There has been considerable discussion about the nature of 2267 and all of the comments I have read from those within the Church indicate that this teaching is prudential. Given the degree of controversy and the statements made regarding the prudential nature of the teaching, unless you can show countervailing evidence to the contrary, I see no reason whatever to doubt those who have expressed their opinion.

And that you agree that 2267 is not in error, but that it is only an opinion and cannot be right or wrong?

Opinions can be correct or incorrect - and 2267 inadequately address the issue and in my opinion is incorrect.

This point of view renders the entire catechism meaningless. Why wouldn’t this reasoning apply to the rest of the catechism?

There are three forms of teachings: dogma, doctrine, and prudential opinions and they are not mutually exclusive so all could exist simultaneously in the same document. Clearly, the catechism contains both dogma and doctrine; why could it not also contain opinion? The fact that no one has publicly categorized any portion of the catechism other than 2267 as prudential implies to me that there is no reason to believe other prudential opinions crept in.

Ender

 

[TMC]

Clearly, the catechism contains both dogma and doctrine; why could it not also contain opinion? The fact that no one has publicly categorized any portion of the catechism other than 2267 as prudential implies to me that there is no reason to believe other prudential opinions crept in.

No, I really don’t think it can. And I have also never seen it described as prudential by an actual Church official, despite the many claims.

Cardinal Dulles said that it was the prudential opinion of USCCB that the death penalty in the U.S. conflicts with the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. He said that the Pope’s call to end the death penalty was prudential. He did not say that 2267 was ITSELF prudential, merely that the Pope, his and the USCCB’s opinion on the immorality of the death penalty as applied in the U.S. and elsewhere is prudential. That gives a loophole to say that the death penalty in the U.S. meets the standard of being “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives.” (Although that would be tough to defend, in my opinion.) It does not give a loophole to say that the death penalty is moral in other circumstances - for vengence or to save money, for example.

Cardinal Ratzinger said that abortion and euthanasia are always wrong but that there was room for disagreement on when the death penalty may be applied. He said this in the context of defining manifest grave sins. Obviously he is correct. The Church allows the death penalty in certain very limited circumstances, but never allows abortion - even to save another life. When the limited circumstances for the application of the death penalty are met can be discussed. Abortion can not be discussed like that. Nothing in his statement even suggests that the Church’s teaching on the death penalty is merely an opinion. He did not use the word prudential.

If there are other statements out there, I’d like to know what they are. These are the two that I hear twisted out of shape to mean something they don’t.

I understand that some people say their conscience leads them to reject this teaching. But I don’t understand people simply refusing to admit that the Church means what it says. If 2267 can be dismissed as prudential, the vast majority of the catechism can, as well.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

He said that the Pope’s call to end the death penalty was prudential. He did not say that 2267 was ITSELF prudential, merely that the Pope, his and the USCCB’s opinion on the immorality of the death penalty as applied in the U.S. and elsewhere is prudential.

Simply paraphrasing a passage who’s meaning has been repeatedly described as prudential in nature in no way suggests or establishes that the ideas contained therein are no longer prudential simply because of the restatement.

 

[TMC]

Simply paraphrasing a passage who’s meaning has been repeatedly described as prudential in nature in no way suggests or establishes that the ideas contained therein are no longer prudential simply because of the restatement.

Who is paraphrasing? This is what Cardinal Dulles wrote:

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.

He never said that anything in the catechism is prudential. The Pope said the catechism is the authentic teaching of the Church. Where and when has Pope Benedict, as Pope or when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith said that any part of the catechism was prudential, opinion, or optional in any way?