L
livingwordunity
Guest
That’s alright.Gotcha.
In that case I apologize. I got the impression you might be trying to argue/discredit what the CCC says, and that’s why I questioned. My apologies.
Baltimore: basilica illuminated in honor of death penalty repeal [CWN]
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
What make any punishment just? It is not whether it is needed to protect society but whether it is commensurate in severity with the severity of the crime, neither too harsh nor too lenient.*Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. *(CCC 2266)
No one would consider it to be just to execute someone even to protect society if that punishment was too severe for the crime committed. It is the severity of the crime that determines the proper severity of the punishment, not its usefulness in protecting society. That point is made in 2266 (and everything else the church has ever taught on the subject.) This doctrine is not changed by 2267.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Even if the conditions were laid out as you believe it is surely up to others to determine if those conditions have been met. That determination, like the determination to wage war, is the responsibility of the government.
Beyond that, opposition to capital punishment is new to the church, rests on doubtful assertions, and does not oblige our assent.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Why not? Ratzinger is vague on this point. The USCCB wrote that the bishops offered “neither judgment nor condemnation” to those who disagreed with them and the country’s leading theologian explicitly declared 2267 to be prudential. Why would I not agree with Dulles, especially when the problems with 2267 are readily apparent?
The first sentence in 2267 contains an assertion that is not supported by the historical evidence. The third sentence is transparently prudential as it is based on an assessment of the penal capabilities of modern societies and the second sentence reverses the meaning of the passage that has always been the heart of the church’s understanding of capital punishment.
2260 expresses that understanding: “*Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” *(Gen 9:6)
That is, because of the sanctity of the victim’s life, the life of the murderer is forfeit. 2267 reverses this to mean that the life of the murderer is sacred therefore his life is to be spared. There really isn’t much that can be said to support those three sentences.
Ender
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
It is the severity of the crime that determines what level of protection is required by society, and also to a certain extent the amount of punishment needed. However, when it comes to the death penalty, the only time it is morally acceptable is when used under the conditions set forth by the Church. Those conditions do not exist in the US today.
C
CatholicGeek1
Guest
You are not going to convince me. The CCC is clear on what the conditions are for allowing the death penalty. I believe this to be the teaching of the Church and I stand with her on it.
E
Ender
Guest
This is not what the church teaches and this type of argument demonstrates how other church doctrines need to be twisted in order to support what is in 2267. Section 2266 is quite clear and unremarkable: the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime; there is nothing there that says anything about protection. You should recognize the problem with your assertion if you imagine an example where a man kills his parents to get their estate. He presents no further risk to society; he certainly can’t kill his parents again but should he not be punished for the crime he already committed regardless of whether he is a threat to repeat it?
How would you determine whether those conditions exist or not? Would you read something from the Fathers or Doctors of the church or would you have to turn to something like the Bureau of Justice Statistics? Can you define what it means to “effectively repress crime”? What is the cutoff number at which we can say “That’s too many”? If you can’t even precisely define the criterion how can you possibly say we have met it?
I’d like a number: How many recidivist murders are acceptable?
Ender
D
Debora123
Guest
I would just leave it at that. There’s not much else you can say. If someone believes there is false information concerning Church teaching in the CCC, nothing we say is going to convince them.
E
Ender
Guest
Section 2260 is every bit as valid as 2267 and has been the teaching of the church since the beginning. This is clearly the teaching of the church and I stand with her on it. How do you reconcile those two passages?
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Perhaps you would like to explain how to reconcile sections 2260 and 2266 with what is said in 2267. You have chosen the latter over the former; why am I not justified in choosing the former over the latter? (Although that is not in fact what I have done.) Are not all sections of the catechism equal? You might also want to consider your characterization of the Traditional teaching of the church as false. Your position relies totally on one section of the current catechism. My position draws on nearly 2000 years of church teaching which includes the nearly unanimous support of the Fathers and Doctors of the church, all prior catechisms, and the writings of the popes prior to JPII. I don’t think you are aware of just how much the church has said on this topic or for how long she has been saying it.
Let me end with this observation: I have said that an assertion made in 2267 is in error and I can demonstrate the validity of that charge. I have also agreed with Cardinal Dulles that the section represents prudential judgment, not new doctrine. This is very different than saying the catechism contains false teaching. To understand the difference you need only compare your comments about my position with what I have actually said.
Ender
T
thewanderer
Guest
Ok, I was going to unsubscribe from thiss thread, but I saw this post just before I did, so I guess I will stay a very short while longer.
2260 and 2266 are not at all contradictory to 2267. I’'m sorry that you can’t see them as complimentary, but they actually are and I highly doubt that anyone on this thread is claiming that 2260 or 2266 are wrong. None of us are choosing 2267 over 2260 or 2266, we are simply choosing to accept all of them, and understanding them as they must be understood in order to do so.
Just as you can claim that you are not rejecting Church teaching I can claim that you are. We each have reasons for our opinions on this matter. Your arguments against the restricting conditions on the death penalty do not make any sense to me. The only possible conclusion I can come to is that you are rejecting Church teaching. I understand that you do not believe this to be the case. And so long as you are honestly seeking the truth in this matter, while being open to your current position being incorrect and/or based on opinion/emotional attatchments you have formed due to culture/upbringing/other influences, then its all good. Please just make sure that you are truly honestly seeking and open to the truth of this matter and I will do the same. Good day sir/madam. :tiphat:
D
Debora123
Guest
Exactly.2260 and 2266 are not at all contradictory to 2267. I’'m sorry that you can’t see them as complimentary, but they actually are and I highly doubt that anyone on this thread is claiming that 2260 or 2266 are wrong. None of us are choosing 2267 over 2260 or 2266, we are simply choosing to accept all of them, and understanding them as they must be understood in order to do so.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I think this argument can go on for a long time since the teaching on the death penalty does contain some ambiguity.
D
Debora123
Guest
There is no ambiguity concerning the conditions set forth in the CCC for the DP to be moral.I think this argument can go on for a long time since the teaching on the death penalty does contain some ambiguity.
The reason this argument could go on forever is because one of us has rejected what the CCC states as correct church teaching. I personally recognize that there are no further arguments to be made after that.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
All I’m saying is that it’s not as clear as if it would have said “the death penalty is murder”.
D
Debora123
Guest
No one here is saying that. That’s not the issue/disagreement at hand.All I’m saying is that it’s not as clear as if it would have said “the death penalty is murder”.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
I think this argument can go on for a long time since the teaching on the death penalty does contain some ambiguity.
All I’m saying is that it’s not as clear as if it would have said “the death penalty is murder”.
Sorry. I didn’t mean to give you the impression that the quotation marks is to suggest that someone here has said that. I realize no one here has said “the death penalty is murder”. I was only trying to make a hypothetical point that if it did say it that way in the Catechism the message would be more clear, more black and white. But I can see that the Church does clearly lean strongly in the direction of opposing the death penalty in most cases.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The sections of the catechism aren’t devised to stand alone. We are obliged to see each one in the light of the other to understand where we stand today. 2260 is part of the section entitled ‘The witness of sacred history’ where it sets up Gods instruction that blood is the sacred symbol of life and always will be. Not diminished in any way by Jesus instruction to meet agression towards us without anger, hate and vengeance by turning the other cheek and leaving our swords in their sheath. Juxtaposing 2260 with 2262 already poses the foundation of the next section on ‘Legitimate defense’ where the sacred symbol of life that blood represents is still honoured by public authorities within a prescription of double effect. Voila! Both the God of the Old Testament and His Son of the New are fully embraced by humanity in 2013.
I be interested to hear.
E
Ender
Guest
2260 says that the punishment for murder is death. 2267 says that capital punishment may be used only for protection. If 2267 is the controlling position then preventing new crime carries more importance than punishing crimes already committed. 2266 says that the severity of the punishment must (not may) be commensurate with the severity of the crime. 2267 ignores this requirement and asserts that capital punishment, which the church has always recognized as the just punishment for murder, may in fact not be used for this purpose any longer. Basically this means that 2267 supersedes everything else. The three sections are not compatible.
You assert this but present no argument to support your position.
Which church teachings would they be? The prudential judgments issued in 1997 or the Traditional doctrines taught for the preceding 20 centuries? Since my position is based on the Traditional teachings it goes a bit far to claim that I am rejecting church teaching.
What part of this is confusing?*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. *(Cardinal Dulles)
I accept Cardinal Dulles explanation. Was he guilty of rejecting church teaching as well?
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
When you read 2260 in the light of 2267 is it not possible to see a more prominent ‘gist’ emerge though?
2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:
For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.59
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60
This teaching remains necessary for all time.
When you take the passage from Genesis 9 in its context…
*4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
6 “Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind.*
… it is God pressing the need to hold the lifeblood in the greatest esteem no matter what. To that end God makes man His instrument of reckoning. He isn’t promoting man to stand in His place on earth as the ‘reckoner’ unto himself. God makes the killing legal in this passage in order that man understands through it the most sacred importance of blood as the symbol of life.
In 2262, Jesus teachings on the Mount show the way of forgiveness and mercy in dealing with aggressors and we know we are clearly not to be driven by anger, hated and vengeance as we deal with each other. Yet we have a grave duty and right to defend the life and common good of ourselves and others against aggressors, so we see this legitimate killing in defense as mans mandate to effect Gods reckoning.
In 2267 that gist; that is Gods desire that man know in this mystical sense, the importance of blood as the sacred symbol of life, emerges more vividly as the end goal of 2260, since in this era, the whole concept of legal killing has been usurped by the culture of death. ie. abortion, euthanasia and youth suicide etc ‘Legal’ killing no longer promotes in man, a sense of the sacredness of life through the symbol of blood shed for it. It is counter productive to the primary point made by 2260.
So the death penalty, while not intrinsically evil, has been rendered counter to its goal by the conditions of today.
- Status