Baltimore: basilica illuminated in honor of death penalty repeal [CWN]

[Portrait]

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

Dear Ender,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your posts in this thread, which have brought to our notice a genuine issue respecting paragraph 2267 of the current Church Catechism.

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that there has been a radical shift in our Church’s understanding of capital punishment in recent times and one could be pardoned for terming it a radical U-turn. As Mr. Keating (founder of Catholic Answers) has stated:

“The Catechism has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only one in the Catechism on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience”.

(Karl Keating’s E letter, 2nd March 2004)

This to my mind this is undoubtedly true and irrefutable and I think men should acknowledge the very real problem of harmonising current Church teaching on the death penalty with what has been previously held. If it be doubted that there has been such a radical shift, then one has only to compare paragraph 2267 with what, for example, Fathers Rumble and Carty (the ‘Radio Priests’) said in their celebrated Radio Replies, which only echoed Church teaching:

“The State possesses the right on the same principles as an individual who may kill an unjust aggressor, if there be no other efficacious way in which to preserve his own life. Those who’s crimes gravely threaten the well-being of society may be put to death by social authority when lesser penalties prove inefficacious as a control upon them. God Himself sanctioned this law in Hebrew society, and it is entirely reasonable. If the extreme penalty could not be lawfully inflicted by the State upon the enemies of the common good, much greater and more widespread evils would ensue”

(Radio Replies, Vol. 2, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Tan Books & Publishers 1979, p. 300)

The fact that God Himself established the death penalty for those who wantonly and wilfully take the life of another (Gen 9: 6), clearly shows that the requirements of justice cannot not met by lifetime incarceration. What is sadly forgotten in the mawkish age in which our lot is cast is that the whole rationale for the death penalty is the divine image of God in man. Therefore, any attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty and is thus an outrage against God.

As regards the perpetuity of the institution of capital punishment, dear friend, no consideration is more important than this: the reason for the propriety of execution on the part of man is one that has permanent relevance and continuing validity; for how can there be a suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God; surely it remains as true today as it did Noah’s day? How can progressive revelation and Church teaching modify the original mandate of the Book of Genesis, which was antecedent to the Mosaic Law? The “Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it” (CCC. para. 86).

Nothing evinces the moral bankruptcy of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life. Now, dear friend, it is surely this atrophy of moral fibre that appears in the continual pleas for the abolition of the death penalty. What men need to grasp today is that it is the sanctity of life that validates capital punishment for the heinous crime of murder. Moreover, it is this sense of sanctity that actually constrains the demand for the infliction of this severe but very necessary penalty. It really boils down to this: the deeper one’s regard for life the firmer will be one’s hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merits.

God bless and thankyou for your splendid (name removed by moderator)ut.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[LeafByNiggle]

2260 says that the punishment for murder is death.

The bible verse quoted in 2260 is addressed to the malefactor. It is not instruction directed toward the state. It does not give license to the state to carry out God’s punishment. There are many examples in the history of the Jewish people where God punishes them by means of allowing their enemies to kill them. But that punishment did not mean those enemies of Israel were themselves absolved of sin, even though they were the means by which God’s will was done. Be careful how you resolve the paradox that evil actions can sometimes turn out to be the means of achieving God’s will, even though those actions remain evil.

The application to modern day capital punishment is that 2260 can be interpreted as a warning to the murderer that he will be punished by the hand on man, but it is also possible that the very same hand that inflicts that punishment is guilty of sin for doing so. 2260 does not say one way or the other. So do not assume 2260 sanctions capital punishment because it doesn’t.

2266 says that the severity of the punishment must (not may) be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

The exact word is proportionate. But commensurate is a pretty good synonym. I know you are trying to link up 2260 with 2266 to show that the death penalty is the proportionate punishment, but that is not at all obvious. All that proportionate means is that more serious crimes warrant more serious punishment. But it does specify the proportionality factor. That is left up to the prudential judgement of the legitimate authority. The best you can say is that 2266 permits (but does not require) capital punishment. So I disagree with your special emphasis of “must (not may)” in supporting capital punishment.

Was he [Cardinal Dulles] guilty of rejecting church teaching as well?

Does he explicitly reject 2267? I think you are going further than he did.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

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

I reconcile it as 2260 speaks of things generally. 2267 speaks to the death penalty specifically.

 

[LongingSoul]

Dear Ender,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your posts in this thread, which have brought to our notice a genuine issue respecting paragraph 2267 of the current Church Catechism.

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that there has been a radical shift in our Church’s understanding of capital punishment in recent times and one could be pardoned for terming it a radical U-turn. As Mr. Keating (founder of Catholic Answers) has stated:

“The Catechism has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only one in the Catechism on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience”.

(Karl Keating’s E letter, 2nd March 2004)

This to my mind this is undoubtedly true and irrefutable and I think men should acknowledge the very real problem of harmonising current Church teaching on the death penalty with what has been previously held. If it be doubted that there has been such a radical shift, then one has only to compare paragraph 2267 with what, for example, Fathers Rumble and Carty (the ‘Radio Priests’) said in their celebrated Radio Replies, which only echoed Church teaching:

“The State possesses the right on the same principles as an individual who may kill an unjust aggressor, if there be no other efficacious way in which to preserve his own life. Those who’s crimes gravely threaten the well-being of society may be put to death by social authority when lesser penalties prove inefficacious as a control upon them. God Himself sanctioned this law in Hebrew society, and it is entirely reasonable. If the extreme penalty could not be lawfully inflicted by the State upon the enemies of the common good, much greater and more widespread evils would ensue”

(Radio Replies, Vol. 2, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Tan Books & Publishers 1979, p. 300)

The fact that God Himself established the death penalty for those who wantonly and wilfully take the life of another (Gen 9: 6), clearly shows that the requirements of justice cannot not met by lifetime incarceration. What is sadly forgotten in the mawkish age in which our lot is cast is that the whole rationale for the death penalty is the divine image of God in man. Therefore, any attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty and is thus an outrage against God.

As regards the perpetuity of the institution of capital punishment, dear friend, no consideration is more important than this: the reason for the propriety of execution on the part of man is one that has permanent relevance and continuing validity; for how can there be a suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God; surely it remains as true today as it did Noah’s day? How can progressive revelation and Church teaching modify the original mandate of the Book of Genesis, which was antecedent to the Mosaic Law? The “Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it” (CCC. para. 86).

Nothing evinces the moral bankruptcy of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life. Now, dear friend, it is surely this atrophy of moral fibre that appears in the continual pleas for the abolition of the death penalty. What men need to grasp today is that it is the sanctity of life that validates capital punishment for the heinous crime of murder. Moreover, it is this sense of sanctity that actually constrains the demand for the infliction of this severe but very necessary penalty. It really boils down to this: the deeper one’s regard for life the firmer will be one’s hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merits.

God bless and thankyou for your splendid (name removed by moderator)ut.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I think this is beautifully said Portrait.Oh that I could master your way with words.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Dear Ender,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your posts in this thread, which have brought to our notice a genuine issue respecting paragraph 2267 of the current Church Catechism.

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that there has been a radical shift in our Church’s understanding of capital punishment in recent times and one could be pardoned for terming it a radical U-turn. As Mr. Keating (founder of Catholic Answers) has stated:

“The Catechism has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only one in the Catechism on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience”.

(Karl Keating’s E letter, 2nd March 2004)

This to my mind this is undoubtedly true and irrefutable and I think men should acknowledge the very real problem of harmonising current Church teaching on the death penalty with what has been previously held. If it be doubted that there has been such a radical shift, then one has only to compare paragraph 2267 with what, for example, Fathers Rumble and Carty (the ‘Radio Priests’) said in their celebrated Radio Replies, which only echoed Church teaching:

“The State possesses the right on the same principles as an individual who may kill an unjust aggressor, if there be no other efficacious way in which to preserve his own life. Those who’s crimes gravely threaten the well-being of society may be put to death by social authority when lesser penalties prove inefficacious as a control upon them. God Himself sanctioned this law in Hebrew society, and it is entirely reasonable. If the extreme penalty could not be lawfully inflicted by the State upon the enemies of the common good, much greater and more widespread evils would ensue”

(Radio Replies, Vol. 2, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Tan Books & Publishers 1979, p. 300)

The fact that God Himself established the death penalty for those who wantonly and wilfully take the life of another (Gen 9: 6), clearly shows that the requirements of justice cannot not met by lifetime incarceration. What is sadly forgotten in the mawkish age in which our lot is cast is that the whole rationale for the death penalty is the divine image of God in man. Therefore, any attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty and is thus an outrage against God.

As regards the perpetuity of the institution of capital punishment, dear friend, no consideration is more important than this: the reason for the propriety of execution on the part of man is one that has permanent relevance and continuing validity; for how can there be a suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God; surely it remains as true today as it did Noah’s day? How can progressive revelation and Church teaching modify the original mandate of the Book of Genesis, which was antecedent to the Mosaic Law? The “Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it” (CCC. para. 86).

Nothing evinces the moral bankruptcy of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life. Now, dear friend,** it is surely this atrophy of moral fibre that appears in the continual pleas for the abolition of the death penalty. **What men need to grasp today is that it is the sanctity of life that validates capital punishment for the heinous crime of murder. Moreover, it is this sense of sanctity that actually constrains the demand for the infliction of this severe but very necessary penalty. It really boils down to this: the deeper one’s regard for life the firmer will be one’s hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merits.

God bless and thankyou for your splendid (name removed by moderator)ut.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I’m sorry but I think suggesting that people have a “problem with their moral fiber” because they are against the death penalty is offensive. Keep in mind, you are not only saying this about those on this board, but about many leaders of our Church. It is exactly because we have respect for the sanctity of life - all life, that we are against the death penalty.

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m sorry but I think suggesting that people have a “problem with their moral fiber” because they are against the death penalty is offensive. Keep in mind, you are not only saying this about those on this board, but about many leaders of our Church. It is exactly because we have respect for the sanctity of life - all life, that we are against the death penalty.

No, no, I take Portrait to be saying something different. He/she is saying that our culture suffers moral bankruptcy in its disregard for the sanctity of life and it’s this fact that is behind the call for abolition of the death penalty today. That while the sanctity of life is what validates the death penalty in the first instance, the sanctity of life also validates the constraints on it required by the times.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that there has been a radical shift in our Church’s understanding of capital punishment in recent times and one could be pardoned for terming it a radical U-turn.

One could be similarly pardoned for calling this understanding a refinement of long-standing doctrine. If you can pardon descriptions on one side I can pardon descriptions on the other side. Using flowery words (“one can be pardoned”) does nothing to advance the debate one way or the other.

As Mr. Keating (founder of Catholic Answers) has stated:
“The Catechism has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only one in the Catechism on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience”.

That is purely a statement of opinion on Mr. Keating’s part and does not substantiate the claim he makes. He just makes it and asks us to go along.

This to my mind this is undoubtedly true and irrefutable and I think men should acknowledge the very real problem of harmonising current Church teaching on the death penalty with what has been previously held.

Now we hear your opinion, again without substantiation. There are those who believe that the Church’s teaching is already in harmony with what has been previously held as doctrine.

If it be doubted that there has been such a radical shift, then one has only to compare paragraph 2267 with what, for example, Fathers Rumble and Carty (the ‘Radio Priests’) said in their celebrated Radio Replies, which only echoed Church teaching:

“The State possesses the right on the same principles as an individual who may kill an unjust aggressor, if there be no other efficacious way in which to preserve his own life. Those who’s crimes gravely threaten the well-being of society may be put to death by social authority when lesser penalties prove inefficacious as a control upon them. God Himself sanctioned this law in Hebrew society, and it is entirely reasonable. If the extreme penalty could not be lawfully inflicted by the State upon the enemies of the common good, much greater and more widespread evils would ensue”

The last sentence is a prudential judgment on the part of the Radio Priests and is not even a statement about doctrine, in the same way you say 2267 is a prudential judgement.

The fact that God Himself established the death penalty for those who wantonly and wilfully take the life of another (Gen 9: 6), clearly shows that the requirements of justice cannot not met by lifetime incarceration.

It is quite a stretch to interpret Gen 9:6 as sanctioning the death penalty for all nations at all times. If you look at the context in Gen 9 you will see that God is speaking to Moses and giving instruction to the Jewish people at that time. In the verses just before it God says you shall not eat any meat that has its lifeblood in it. This kosher rule is not binding on Catholics today. And getting back to Gen 9:6, it is not clear that this is instruction to the Jewish authorities on how to handle malefactors. It could also be a warning to the malefactors about the consequences of such grave sin. And the fact that it says “by the hand of man shall their blood be shed” could be seen as a prediction, not a prescription. In fact the whole tenor of Gen 9 is more in the form of God speaking directly to all the Jewish people and telling them how to behave. It does not specify the form in which the human authorities are to be the agents of this punishment. So you have not made your point that the death penalty is required by justice. The most you can say is that it is permitted.

…the reason for the propriety of execution on the part of man is one that has permanent relevance and continuing validity; for how can there be a suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God; surely it remains as true today as it did Noah’s day? How can progressive revelation and Church teaching modify the original mandate of the Book of Genesis, which was antecedent to the Mosaic Law?

You have not yet proven that limiting the use of the death penalty is a suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God, or than modern teaching is modifying the Book of Genesis any more than the fact that we don’t have to keep kosher anymore.

Now, dear friend, it is surely this atrophy of moral fibre that appears in the continual pleas for the abolition of the death penalty. What men need to grasp today is that it is the sanctity of life that validates capital punishment for the heinous crime of murder.

Not sure what you mean by “validates”. If you mean “permits” then I agree. But if you mean “requires”, then you have not proven that yet.

 

[Debora123]

No, no, I take Portrait to be saying something different. He/she is saying that our culture suffers moral bankruptcy in its disregard for the sanctity of life and it’s this fact that is behind the call for abolition of the death penalty today. That while the sanctity of life is what validates the death penalty in the first instance, the sanctity of life also validates the constraints on it required by the times.

Honestly, I was having a hard time understanding what Portrait was trying to say too. Couldn’t tell if he was for or against it.

 

[livingwordunity]

Dear Ender,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your posts in this thread, which have brought to our notice a genuine issue respecting paragraph 2267 of the current Church Catechism.

It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that there has been a radical shift in our Church’s understanding of capital punishment in recent times and one could be pardoned for terming it a radical U-turn. As Mr. Keating (founder of Catholic Answers) has stated:

“The Catechism has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only one in the Catechism on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience”.

(Karl Keating’s E letter, 2nd March 2004)

This to my mind this is undoubtedly true and irrefutable and I think men should acknowledge the very real problem of harmonising current Church teaching on the death penalty with what has been previously held. If it be doubted that there has been such a radical shift, then one has only to compare paragraph 2267 with what, for example, Fathers Rumble and Carty (the ‘Radio Priests’) said in their celebrated Radio Replies, which only echoed Church teaching:

“The State possesses the right on the same principles as an individual who may kill an unjust aggressor, if there be no other efficacious way in which to preserve his own life. Those who’s crimes gravely threaten the well-being of society may be put to death by social authority when lesser penalties prove inefficacious as a control upon them. God Himself sanctioned this law in Hebrew society, and it is entirely reasonable. If the extreme penalty could not be lawfully inflicted by the State upon the enemies of the common good, much greater and more widespread evils would ensue”

(Radio Replies, Vol. 2, Fathers Rumble and Carty, Tan Books & Publishers 1979, p. 300)

The fact that God Himself established the death penalty for those who wantonly and wilfully take the life of another (Gen 9: 6), clearly shows that the requirements of justice cannot not met by lifetime incarceration. What is sadly forgotten in the mawkish age in which our lot is cast is that the whole rationale for the death penalty is the divine image of God in man. Therefore, any attack on man represents an attack on the divine majesty and is thus an outrage against God.

As regards the perpetuity of the institution of capital punishment, dear friend, no consideration is more important than this: the reason for the propriety of execution on the part of man is one that has permanent relevance and continuing validity; for how can there be a suspension of the fact that man was made in the image of God; surely it remains as true today as it did Noah’s day? How can progressive revelation and Church teaching modify the original mandate of the Book of Genesis, which was antecedent to the Mosaic Law? The “Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it” (CCC. para. 86).

Nothing evinces the moral bankruptcy of a generation more than disregard for the sanctity of human life. Now, dear friend, it is surely this atrophy of moral fibre that appears in the continual pleas for the abolition of the death penalty. What men need to grasp today is that it is the sanctity of life that validates capital punishment for the heinous crime of murder. Moreover, it is this sense of sanctity that actually constrains the demand for the infliction of this severe but very necessary penalty. It really boils down to this: the deeper one’s regard for life the firmer will be one’s hold upon the penal sanction which the violation of that sanctity merits.

God bless and thankyou for your splendid (name removed by moderator)ut.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[livingwordunity]

Honestly, I was having a hard time understanding what Portrait was trying to say too. Couldn’t tell if he was for or against it.

A key part was this

…I think men should acknowledge the very real problem of harmonising current Church teaching on the death penalty with what has been previously held.

 

[LongingSoul]

Honestly, I was having a hard time understanding what Portrait was trying to say too. Couldn’t tell if he was for or against it.

I think what it boils down to, is that as when at different times of the day, the sun will illuminate one aspect of a thing over the other, it doesn’t mean in any way, that any part is diminished by that fact. But that illuminated aspect determines the best time of day to sow and the best time to reap or any number of other analogies we could apply.

Section 2260 does see God giving man a shocking scope of punishment for anyone who violates the life of another man… a creature made in His own image. He wants man to be infused with understanding of how sacred life is by this sacrificial shedding of blood. But in this part of the ‘day’, we are a culture of death and the mandate to take the life of an unjust aggressor has seen unborn babies become ‘unjust aggressors’ to non-receptive mothers and the like. The illumination now falls to the other part of Section 2260 that makes this act of legal killing just. The sanctity of life is paramount within our mandate. We are behoved to withhold the punishment in our time because our culture is not worthy of its use.

Think of love. A beautiful thing when the conditions are right to engage it. But when two people fall in love that aren’t meeting the condition to engage it, the most powerful witness to love is in forsaking it.

(I know that love and the death penalty don’t seem to have parity, but both have the capacity to make us experience the sacredness of our lives… in the right conditions. )

 

[Debora123]

A key part was this

Yeah, I really can’t tell what he means by that. Whether he’s trying to discredit the very clear conditions in the CCC or not. I’ve always had a hard time understanding Portrait’s posts. I usually just skip right through them anyway.

 

[Debora123]

I think what it boils down to, is that as when at different times of the day, the sun will illuminate one aspect of a thing over the other, it doesn’t mean in any way, that any part is diminished by that fact. But that illuminated aspect determines the best time of day to sow and the best time to reap or any number of other analogies we could apply.

Section 2260 does see God giving man a shocking scope of punishment for anyone who violates the life of another man… a creature made in His own image. He wants man to be infused with understanding of how sacred life is by this sacrificial shedding of blood. But in this part of the ‘day’, we are a culture of death and the mandate to take the life of an unjust aggressor has seen unborn babies become ‘unjust aggressors’ to non-receptive mothers and the like. The illumination now falls to the other part of Section 2260 that makes this act of legal killing just. The sanctity of life is paramount within our mandate. We are behoved to withhold the punishment in our time because our culture is not worthy of its use.

Think of love. A beautiful thing when the conditions are right to engage it. But when two people fall in love that aren’t meeting the condition to engage it, the most powerful witness to love is in forsaking it.

(I know that love and the death penalty don’t seem to have parity, but both have the capacity to make us experience the sacredness of our lives… in the right conditions. )

Gotcha. Hopefully that is indeed what he means.

 

[Dranu]

Oh my. I can’t seem to keep out of these topics, but a perceived ignorance on the matter and the ambiguity of 2267 compels me to discuss this (along with my profession).

There is no ambiguity concerning the conditions set forth in the CCC for the DP to be moral.

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.

As you probably know, prudential judgments are not strictly binding upon the faithful. Clearly the 3rd line of 2267 is prudential, but I will grant that the 2nd line is ambiguous between that an a moral/faith rule (which would be binding). Can you clarify to me how the 2nd line is a binding teaching?

 

[Debora123]

Oh my. I can’t seem to keep out of these topics, but a perceived ignorance on the matter and the ambiguity of 2267 compels me to discuss this (along with my profession).

As you probably know, prudential judgments are not strictly binding upon the faithful. Clearly the 3rd line of 2267 is prudential, but I will grant that the 2nd line is ambiguous between that an a moral/faith rule (which would be binding). Can you clarify to me how the 2nd line is a binding teaching?

I really don’t understand what you are talking about. Either you’re being unclear, or, as you say, I’m just “ignorant.”

The fact that there are conditions regarding the morality of the death penalty is non negotiable. Whether or not you believe those conditions are met is a matter of prudential judgement.

 

[livingwordunity]

Yeah, I really can’t tell what he means by that. Whether he’s trying to discredit the very clear conditions in the CCC or not. I’ve always had a hard time understanding Portrait’s posts. I usually just skip right through them anyway.

One doesn’t have to be disagreeing with the CCC to acknowledge that a change happened in the wording as regards the death penalty between the original edition of the CCC and the later official version. The original version of the CCC wording on the death penalty was more in keeping with the traditional view of the Church, and we can say that the later official version “evolved” to lean more to the side of being against the death penalty. Some would say that this change is reconcilable because of its prudential nature. Anyway, what Portrait was saying is that he believes that there’s a way to harmonize the older Church view with what the the CCC says about the death penalty.

 

[Dranu]

The fact that there are conditions regarding the morality of the death penalty is non negotiable. Whether or not you believe those conditions are met is a matter of prudential judgement.

Agreed. There are always moral limitations on the death penalty and application is a matter of prudential judgment, but my question is in regards to CCC 2267. My question is whether the second line of CCC 2267 adds conditions that are more than just prudentially based (and so not strictly binding), and if it does, why? That line says: “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

 

[Debora123]

One doesn’t have to be disagreeing with the CCC to acknowledge that a change happened in the wording as regards the death penalty between the original edition of the CCC and the later official version. The original version of the CCC wording on the death penalty was more in keeping with the traditional view of the Church, and we can say that the later official version “evolved” to lean more to the side of being against the death penalty. Some would say that this change is reconcilable because of its prudential nature. Anyway, what Portrait was saying is that he believes that there’s a way to harmonize the older Church view with what the the CCC says about the death penalty.

…Yeah I really don’t follow what the point of it is though, or what this ultimately means. Not that I’m worried about it. I don’t see how the CCC can be any more clear on the matter, and seeing all this talk about “wording” and “earlier edition” and whatnot just comes off to me as people trying to find loop holes so they can find a way out of the teaching currently set forth in the CCC.

 

[Debora123]

Agreed. There are always moral limitations on the death penalty and application is a matter of prudential judgment, but my question is in regards to CCC 2267. My question is whether the second line of CCC 2267 adds conditions that are more than just prudentially based (and so not strictly binding), and if it does, why? That line says: “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

I think it is prudentially based to a certain extent, because it takes some prudential judgement to determine whether or not non-lethal means are sufficient.

 

[Dranu]

I think it is prudentially based to a certain extent, because it takes some prudential judgement to determine whether or not non-lethal means are sufficient.

True, but I am talking about the rule itself. We both agree that the application of the rule is a matter of prudence and so faithful Catholics can disagree on its application. I am seeing whether you think this rule is more than just prudentially based, and if so, why.

Simply because there is a rule stated by the Church does not mean it is binding. It must be a matter of faith and morals. For example the Church weighing in economy, and setting rules on the well-functioning of it, while interesting, is not a matter that binds the faithful. Of course, in that same example, they may set down moral rules that involve the economy (e.g. respect human wage workers for the sake of morality rather than some other beneficial end, etc). Such would be binding under the right circumstances.