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

[Ender]

You’ll have to point out exactly how that distinction is made because I don’t see it.

The explanation is in the citation you completed. Here is the part I used: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 (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
and here is the rest of it: “If, however, a man takes vengeance outside the order of divine appointment, he usurps what is God’s and therefore sins.”
The first part says that a person who has been duly appointed by the state (in keeping with his rank and position) may take vengeance on the wicked while the second part states that taking vengeance “outside of the order of divine appointment” - meaning that he is not a minister of the state - is sinful.

This idea is expressed throughout church history.*I answer that the vengeance which public officers inflict is rightly called the vengeance of God, for they are the ministers of God, serving Him in this very matter. * (St. Bellarmine)

Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) [Can. Quicumque percutit, caus. xxiii, qu. 8: ‘A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.’ (Aquinas)
Ender

 

[Ender]

If, however, the avenger’s intention be directed chiefly to some good, to be obtained by means of the punishment of the person who has sinned (for instance that the sinner may amend, or at least that he may be restrained and others be not disturbed, that justice may be upheld, and God honored), then vengeance may be lawful, provided other due circumstances be observed.”

Now to me, this could not more clearly state that man is not to primarily address the evil in another, in and of itself, when administering punishment. His intention should be directed only to the good that will be obtained by that punishment… either the medicinal effect for the sinner or the medicinal effect for the common good . Only then is punishment lawful.

I guess your position on this section would be determined by your conception of the common good. It seems that 2267 takes it to mean solely that sinners “may be restrained and others be not disturbed”. Given that we have just read in 2266, however, that the primary objective of punishment is retributive justice it seems “that justice may be upheld” should probably be of some concern. Justice is surely part of the common good.*because the judge has care of the common good, which is justice, and therefore he wishes the thief’s death, which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate; *(Aquinas)
I think what Aquinas was addressing in your citation was the attitude toward punishment that a magistrate should have and also how the severity of the punishment should be balanced against the crime committed.

To be honest, I do not understand the objections to 2267 at all based on Aquinas instruction.

2267 focuses solely on preventing new crimes, of protecting society; it ignores the primary objective of all punishment which is redressing the disorder caused by the crime already committed. That is, it ignores justice. Aquinas, even in addressing a different idea, properly includes the obligation of justice among his concerns.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Ender,

I’ve been trying to read these sections of the CCC and words written by the Saints, through your perspective, but I have to confess it makes me uncomfortable. I feel that you add something to the meaning that has never been there before, concerning man’s relationship to God and to each other. Perhaps I have that wrong and one day Pope John Paul will be found to have had some glitch in his understanding, but I personally find it a completely seamless unfolding of revelation. There is no doubt that God appoints man through the public authority, to be His instrument of justice, but man in his humble ignorance, achieves Gods ends in accordance with the ‘common good’ as he knows it. The constant linking of justice to the ‘common good’ in all passages and teachings on punishment that have been presented in the discussion, for me, assumes what’s written in mens hearts … that is to obey the God who is more just than we can possibly conceive of or thereby, replicate… and to love each other as Jesus loved us. The common good as we can only know it, being the synthesis of these facts.

At the end of the day, in the light of this, if a criminal is rendered benign to the public good and peoples safety, then the blood of atonement which was made once and and for all time through Christ, is out of bounds in our role as Gods instrument of justice and replaced by ‘mercy’ in completing the work of justice in our time.

 

[Debora123]

Ender,

I’ve been trying to read these sections of the CCC and words written by the Saints, through your perspective, but I have to confess it makes me uncomfortable. I feel that you add something to the meaning that has never been there before, concerning man’s relationship to God and to each other. Perhaps I have that wrong and one day Pope John Paul will be found to have had some glitch in his understanding, but I personally find it a completely seamless unfolding of revelation.

 

[Portrait]

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.

Dear CatholicGeek1,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response and please forgive the delay in my reply but it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends.

Whilst I freely admit, dear friend, that not every person who argues in favour of the abolition of the death penalty does so because of a want of moral fibre, the fact is that many do. It admits of no serious doubt that in our degenerate age the poison of humanism has directed sympathy to the criminal instead of the victim, the emphasis being chiefly on reform rather than retribution. Men have forgotten that the state has a legitimate delegated authority given to it by God (Rom. 13: 1) and is a “minister of God” to execute His wrath upon malefactors, including capital punishment, “for he beareth not the sword in vain” (Rom. 13: 4).

Modern man, dear friend, who has been fed a barrage of maudlin sentimentality from atheistic humanism, must disabuse himself of the erroneous belief that the death penalty is about revenge rather than the suppression of evil and just retribution. Moreover, more benevolence is actually shown in punishing violence, and so repressing it, than in suffering it to prevail. Even before the institution of the Mosaic Law God gave to Noah (not Moses) a command to the whole human race that was to be perpetually valid: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man” (Gen. 9: 6). Notwithstanding man’s fallen estate on account of Original Sin,* there has been no abrogation of man’s being in the image of God*, thus the rationale given for the death penalty is as true today as it was in Noah’s day. The mandate of the Genesis passage, requiring the death penalty for murder, therefore remains one of continuing validity in 2013.

God bless

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

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.

Dear LongingSoul,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Thankyou for trying to clarify my postion, dear friend, and to some extent you accurately state it. Certainly, owing to the steady stream of humanistic ideology, our culture does suffer a deep moral bankruptcy, which has resulted in less regard and value for the sanctity of life. This we can plainly see in the case of widespread Abortion, where every consideration takes precedence over the unborn life of the child.

Man being made in the image of God (Gen 9: 6) most certainly does perpetually validate capitial punishment for murder and necessitates its continued use, which is what I meant by “constrains the demand for the infliction of this severe but very necessary penalty”. Moreover, dear friend, since there has been no suspension of the image of God in man it logically follows that there can be no suspension of the penal sanction which a violation of that image warrants.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. Such a departure from previous teaching, which stretches back almost two millennia, is bound to invite controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful. (Bishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)
It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation). (Prof. Steven A. Long, Univ. of St. Thomas)
Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself! (Catechism of Trent)
It is wrong, therefore “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity.” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2). (Fr. Hardon citing Pope Pius XII)
Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? … How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live? (J. Budziszewski)
Ender

Dear Ender,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Splendid citations, which expand jolly nicely upon my remarks.

Thankyou for your first-rate (name removed by moderator)ut on this thread, with which I wholeheartedly concur. You certainly know your stuff on this topic, dear friend. Keep up the good work, for your argumentation is jolly cogent in my opinion.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Ender]

I’ve been trying to read these sections of the CCC and words written by the Saints, through your perspective, but I have to confess it makes me uncomfortable.

I’m not surprised by this. At first glance my insistence on justice and punishment seems harsh and unmerciful, despite the fact that I appear to cite the great teachers of the past making those points. It is fair to suggest that the common perception of Christianity as a religion solely of sweetness and light ignores the fact that we are responsible for our actions, for the church also teaches:“Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him.” (Is 3:11)

I feel that you add something to the meaning that has never been there before, concerning man’s relationship to God and to each other.

It seems to me that society has gone a long way toward dismissing the idea of sin. If a person commits some evil it is not because he is evil but because he is mentally unbalanced, was raised by a disfunctional family, or was led astray in his youth. In such cases what he needs is not punishment but healing. This is a dangerously wrong perspective.*For example, some are inclined to replace exaggerated attitudes of the past with other exaggerations: From seeing sin everywhere they pass to not recognizing it anywhere; from too much emphasis on the fear of eternal punishment they pass to preaching a love of God that excludes any punishment deserved by sin; *(JPII, Reconciliatia et Paenitentia)

In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people.* Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity** and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. *(Ibid)

At the end of the day, in the light of this, if a criminal is rendered benign to the public good and peoples safety, then the blood of atonement which was made once and and for all time through Christ, is out of bounds in our role as Gods instrument of justice and replaced by ‘mercy’ in completing the work of justice in our time.

*‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. (Pius XII, 1953)
Ender
*

 

[Portrait]

Snip/

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.

Dear LeafByNiggle,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response and apologies for the delay in replying.

Our Catechism, dear friend, whilst strongly discouraging capital punishment does not overtly condemn it and, indeed, would not do so since the constant teaching of the Church has always held the death penalty to be morally licit. Moreover, the teaching of previous popes and catechisms has not only always deemed capital punishment to be legitimate, but has also taught that its validity is not subject to cultural variation. At any rate it would have never considered the death penalty to be a moral evil or un-Christian. Therefore, the current anti-capital punishment sentiment, now so popular in the contemporary Catholic Church, effectively accuses the Church of uncharitable behaviour throughout the ages because it sanctioned the state’s right to bear the sword, as St. Paul puts it (Rom 13: 4). Is it really reasonable or true to say that God only gave the Church a growing awareness of the dignity and value of human life in recent times, thus enabling her to apprehend the supposed moral evil of the death penalty? This, to my mind, and I suspect to the minds of others also, hardly seems a credible and tenable position to embrace.

As regards Mr. Keating’s claim that the section of the Catechism which treats of the death penalty (para. 2267) is prudential, was based upon an article written by the canon lawyer, R.M. Dunnigan. This is what Mr. Dunnigan said in the article:

“Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has the right to impose the death penalty, the Catechism declares that the actual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically non-existent”. Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgements that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching”.

Now of course, dear friend, one can glibly respond and say that current teaching is not a mess for them, but I think that the fact that a canon lawyer and a respected apologist have raised issues with the Catechism teaching on capital punishment, perhaps may just indicate that the teaching is a little muddy and that some uncertainty as to its precise meaning may exist. At any rate, many are of the opinion that this teaching should be revisited and that the Church should clear up any uncertainty and definitively clarify its position on this most weighty matter.

True, dear friend, a question does arise as to whether Genesis 9: 6 is to be understood merely as a divine prediction of the future consequences of murder, or rather as a divine command concerning society’s proper punishment of the murderer. Grammatically it is possible to construe the Hebrew verb translated “shall be shed” either way. However, several factors in the context of the verse give a jolly strong indication that it is a divine command that is intended. Observe that in the immediately preceding verse (9: 5) God states that he will require a reckoning for the lifeblood of man, whether that blood be shed by man or beast. Now the language of requirement implies an imperative rather than a mere description. Moreover, a rationale for the action is given, namely the creation of man in the image of God. If a bare description had been intended, such an explanation would have been unnecessary. It should also be noted that the later provisions of the Pentateuch such as Numbers 35: 16-21 clearly require the murderer to be put to death. Thus it would, I think, be contrary to the analogy of Sacred Scripture, as well as the natural sense of the passage, to understand Gen. 9: 6 as anything else than a timeless charge given to man to execute the death penalty. The highly regarded A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture takes this obvious interpretation and simply says, "permission is given to take the life of a murderer: “by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9: 6).

The very fact, dear friend, that there has been no suspension of the image of God in man means that if justice is to be done then the murderer must be put to death by legitimate authority. Moreover, this must necessarily be perpetually valid, unless we say that man is no longer made in the image of God, which would, of course, be preposterous and a denial of elementary Church and bible doctrine.

God bless

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[LongingSoul]

I’m not surprised by this. At first glance my insistence on justice and punishment seems harsh and unmerciful, despite the fact that I appear to cite the great teachers of the past making those points. It is fair to suggest that the common perception of Christianity as a religion solely of sweetness and light ignores the fact that we are responsible for our actions, for the church also teaches:"Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him." (Is 3:11)

You’ve misrepresented my perspective here. If you look at my posts on other issues at Catholic Answers with regard to sin, you’ll notice that I am firmly conservatively aligned with the Churchs teachings in this regard.

My discomfort? I’m Australian and including my children, come from 4 generations of Catholicism that stands against the death penalty. It was abolished in Queensland first (where I live), and that was 1922. It was a cruel and unnecessary penalty then considering that the British Monarchy who’d administered it for the previous 100 odd years had no concept that the Irish and Aboriginal people were equal. There was a culture of inequality similar to the culture of inequality (unborn babies) that pervades society today. When legal killing is used as a way of ‘sanctifying’ human inequality in the culture primarily, it is no longer ‘divinely inspired’. Therein lies my discomfort.

It seems to me that society has gone a long way toward dismissing the idea of sin. If a person commits some evil it is not because he is evil but because he is mentally unbalanced, was raised by a disfunctional family, or was led astray in his youth. In such cases what he needs is not punishment but healing. This is a dangerously wrong perspective.*For example, some are inclined to replace exaggerated attitudes of the past with other exaggerations: From seeing sin everywhere they pass to not recognizing it anywhere; from too much emphasis on the fear of eternal punishment they pass to preaching a love of God that excludes any punishment deserved by sin; *(JPII, Reconciliatia et Paenitentia)

In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people.* Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity*** and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (Ibid)

And yet it is John Paul II that you are holding up against the Church as misguided or wrong? Why, if it is clear that JPII has a firm grasp on this subject, is it so impossible to believe that he is speaking by the Holy Spirit on this matter? When the Chief Priests and Elders held Jesus against the teachers of Mosaic Law, they also found them irreconcilable. Yet He insisted He had not come to dispense with the Law, but to fulfill it. It’s not so out of left field that the living Advocate of the Father, would cause such confusion that can only be reconciled by a radical change of heart. That’s what faith is. If everything was always understood, it would be ‘known’ rather than ‘believed’. Jesus promised us another ‘living’ Advocate, the Holy Spirit, who’ll remain with us until the end of time. Is it not possible that JPII, through his voice as Pope, teaches what the Holy Spirit wants us to trust in faith?

 

[sw85]

I dunno what the hubbub is; Ender’s arguments here are obviously, unambiguously right.

Interpreting what is in EV and CCC re: the death penalty as doctrine results in obvious doctrinal conflict, which is why all the arguments for it present here conform almost perfectly to what Pope Benedict derided as the “hermeneutic of rupture.” More importantly there’s no particularly good reason to interpret them as doctrinal since JPII’s style largely forsook the casual use of dogmatic language (in keeping with the Church’s postconciliar PR paradigm) and we cannot be obligated to believe what we are never told we are obligated to believe. Thankfully there is no need to interpret them as doctrinal because they make sense on their own as prudential judgments.

If they are prudential judgments, then there is no conflict, because the Church’s teachings have always acknowledged that prudence dictates the extent to which positive moral precepts (such as “execute criminals”) apply. In other words, even though we’re all obliged to accept that on principle the state may execute criminals justly, in practice people are allowed to disagree in good faith about whether or not it’s prudent to (not: “prudent to,” NOT “moral to”) in the here-and-now.

 

[Portrait]

Dearly beloved friends,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Those who feel compelled to oppose the death penalty often do so on the grounds that it leads, according to them, to the dehumanization of a society that officially kills its members. Moreover, it is frequently said that in far too many instances plain revenge is the real motivating factor behind demanding the death penalty of a murderer.

It goes without saying, dear friends, that from a Christian standpoint revenge is most certainly an unworthy motive for any action. However, given that God Himself mandated the death penalty for wilful murder in the first place (Gen. 9: 6), it does rather seem an insulting affront to say that capital punishment results in the dehumanization of society. Moreover, this sort of thinking evinces the extent to which the poisonous maudlin ideology of secular humanism, which always directs sympathy to the criminal instead of the victim, has impacted modern thought, resulting in utter disregard for the sanctity of human life. Of course, this is a part of a much broader issue, namely, the tragic loss of the Christian consciousness within Western culture, with the sad consequence that men no longer think with an authentic Christian mind regarding such issues as capital punishment.

What many modern people have lost sight of, dear friends, is that Almighty God created man in his own image at first - “in the image of God made he man” (Gen. 9: 6). Therefore, man is very precious to His Creator and ought to be so to us. God put an honour upon him and even in his fallen estate that image of God still remains, so that he who unjustly kills his fellow-man defaces this image and does dishonour to him. Interestingly, whilst God permitted men to kill their beasts, yet He forbade them to kill their slaves, for these were of more infinite value, being not only God’s creatures, but those who were made in His image. Slaves or not, they were, nonetheless, “made after the similitude of God” (Jam. 3: 9). All men have something of the image of God upon them which is why God does not tolerate their wilful murder and has duly appointed the state to execute them - “Whose sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9: 6). The legitimate government of a country is invested with the power to put to death those found guilty of murder, for when violence in the form of murder is done to a man, it is in effect an outrage against God. One could say that the very act of killing lays profane hands on that which is divine. Indeed, this image of God in man is the whole rationale for the death penalty and, because there has been no suspension of this image of God in man, the mandate given through Noah continues to be valid and sanctions the capital penalty for the crime of murder. Moreover, the Gospel, including the teaching of Christ, does not overturn this perpetual mandate, but presupposes it continuing validity for non-theocratic societies.

Unfortunately, dear friends, we now live in a climate where the whole concept of retribution, that crime inherently deserves punishment, is considered outmoded and even morally repugnant. There are now liberals that speak of retribution as a sort of socialized and measured form of revenge, which is forbidden to the Christian in any form. This is rather extreme, I will grant you, but its thinking has undoubtedly influenced those who press for the abolition of capital punishment. Sadly, this warped thinking results from a failure to distinguish between retributive justice and sinful revenge. Properly understood, retribution is a satisfaction of the requirements of justice, a restoration of a disturbed moral balance. Sacred Scripture clearly distinguishes between such a concept and feelings of personal hatred by forbidding the sinful feelings and actions out of which they spring.

The punishment, dear friend, if it is to meet the requirements of justice, must be commensurate with the crime and thus reflect its weight and severity. Such a balancing of crime and punishment is surely consonant with the basic instincts if mankind. It also protects the criminal inasmuch as the punishment does have its limits. In the case of the grave crime of murder, God has mandated that those found guilty must forfeit their own lives to satisfy the demands of retributive justice, as well as for killing another who is made in His image. The proper administration of the death penalty is a display, not of revenge, but of divine justice and God’s wrath on the wrongdoer (see Rom. 13: 4). It is, according to God, an appropriate and fitting punishment for the most heinous of crimes. Moreover, it underscores man’s accountability for his actions and serves as a grim reminder of the urgent need to make peace with God in the Sacrament of Penance while the opportunity yet remains.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Fairwinds]

…
At the end of the day, in the light of this, if a criminal is rendered benign to the public good and peoples safety, …

but they’re not, that’s just a comfortable myth.

 

[LongingSoul]

Unfortunately, dear friends, we now live in a climate where the whole concept of retribution, that crime inherently deserves punishment, is considered outmoded and even morally repugnant. There are now liberals that speak of retribution as a sort of socialized and measured form of revenge, which is forbidden to the Christian in any form. This is rather extreme, I will grant you, but its thinking has undoubtedly influenced those who press for the abolition of capital punishment.

The defence of capital punishment as an institution, is a uniquely American obsession. Conservatives and liberals alike in all other Christian/Jewish countries behold it not as an exception to the fifth commandment, but an extreme defense that should only ever, clearly and undoubtedly, witness to the sacred nature of mans life. Even the rabbi’s that wrote the Talmud created almost impenetrable barriers to using it, that in practicle terms, it is almost impossible to be applied by our older brothers in Gods family.

Very few in the world today believe that Pope John Paul speaking with the backing of his ecclesiastical office, would be so ignorant and misleading in using the firm and clear language that he has to denounce the death penalty. Noone (apart from the Sedavacantists) believe he is a liberal.

“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 27). I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.

• John Paul II, Papal Mass,
  St. Louis, Missouri,
  January 27, 1999

With all due respect to those who feel it their duty to defend the death penalty as an institution which must always and ever be supported, I do believe that position is ignorant and misguided and closed to the Holy Spirit. I’m very sorry to have such a strong opinion, but I’ve come to see it as counter-productive to charity and faith to be pitting each other against the magisterium.

 

[sw85]

Please read Ender’s posts here and elsewhere, which address all the objections already raised.

Once again, the problem is that if we take JPII’s words at face value then we have a problematic doctrinal conflict which is seemingly impossible to reconcile. Since doctrinal conflict is impossible, the only clear solution is to deny that they are doctrine, i.e., to treat them as prudential judgments, which is the consensus of the theologians Ender has already cited who have reviewed the issue carefully.

We cannot, i.e., we are absolutely forbidden from, interpreting JPII’s words in a hermeneutic of rupture, however difficult it may be otherwise to make sense of them. However we interpret them, we have to interpret them in a manner consistent with the Magisterium of the Church. This was a major theme of Benedict’s Pontificate. The only way I am aware of to do this is to treat his teachings as nondoctrinal, i.e., because they are prudential judgments, or because of the general lack of dogmatic language and because of the principle that you cannot be obliged to believe what you are not told you are obliged to believe.

 

[Fairwinds]

…With all due respect to those who feel it their duty to defend the death penalty …, I do believe that position is ignorant…

ok, nonproductive and insulting.

the CCC permits it under a few circumstances, there have been numerous and very specific examples of those few circumstances, instances where prisons have failed and will continue to fail to prevent future murders. instead of addressing any of them, even by the lamest handwave argument, you call us “ignorant”.

why do you put your opinion over the Magesterium’s teaching?

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
…With all due respect to those who feel it their duty to defend the death penalty …, I do believe that position is ignorant…

To be fair, you’ve edited my sentences to alter my position which isn’t an honest way to discuss. I said those defending the death penalty as an institution.

Also I didn’t call “you all” ignorant, I said that position is what I believe to be ignorant. Bad form to do that. Tsk

Also, I’ve been addressing the issues for umpteen pages on this thread, not making “lame handwave arguments” in but a single post.

Also, I am not putting my opinion over the Magisterium’s teaching. Even the sticky thread at the top of this page presents Church teaching in accordance with the position I’ve supported. If I am indeed wrong to take this position as one out of keeping with this forum, it might well be prudent to establish that within the above sticky thread to prevent unwitting members falling into this sticky web.

 

[Fairwinds]

To be fair, you’ve edited my sentences to alter my position which isn’t an honest way to discuss. I said those defending the death penalty as an institution.

Also I didn’t call “you all” ignorant, I said that position is what I believe to be ignorant. Bad form to do that. Tsk

Also, I’ve been addressing the issues for umpteen pages on this thread, not making “lame handwave arguments” in but a single post.

Also, I am not putting my opinion over the Magisterium’s teaching. Even the sticky thread at the top of this page presents Church teaching in accordance with the position I’ve supported. If I am indeed wrong to take this position as one out of keeping with this forum, it might well be prudent to establish that within the above sticky thread to prevent unwitting members falling into this sticky web.

that parsing won’t cut it. you were quoted fairly.

 

[Dranu]

With all due respect to those who feel it their duty to defend the death penalty as an institution which must always and ever be supported, I do believe that position is ignorant and misguided and closed to the Holy Spirit. I’m very sorry to have such a strong opinion, but I’ve come to see it as counter-productive to charity and faith to be pitting each other against the magisterium.

To claim the magisterium officially teaches something it doesn’t could indeed be contrary to the magisterium. What first must be established is that it is teaching. By the text, tradition, and even current statements by the CDF/Inquisition, this is not clear. Unlike other clear statements of the Church, there is room for legitimate debate without pulling out the ‘heresy card,’ like we can, and ought, in other matters.

 

[Dranu]

Mercy has always been appropriate and I really have a hard time interpreting this passage that way. After all, if this is what was meant, then that is what ought to have been said. Instead the inexplicable phrase that capital punishment is less “in conformity with the dignity” of the criminal was used.

Well as it is inexplicable I seek at least some reasonable explanation and thats the best I can come up with. Seems to me likely the answer though as all acts of justice could in a sense be seen contrary to human dignity directly (as human dignity is to live) even though not in light of the reason the act is just (that our dignity is such that our choices can reduce our dignity to where death is good for us).

Specifically, while the end of the (fifth) commandment may be the preservation of life, that is not the primary end of punishment and, in this sentence, Trent did not address the ends of punishment. In fact, the primary objective of punishment is retributive justice, not protection. To accept that physical safety is the primary objective of capital punishment would be to reject this teaching.

Good point, but human safety was one of the only justifications they gave. Hence why I said it came close to such a limitation (though it never did).

I think I pointed out that the men I cited were not merely saints but were given the title Doctors of the Church “on account of the great advantage the whole Church has derived from their doctrine.” It questions the accuracy of the title to accept that all three of them were wrong on this particular point.

Aye, but even Doctors of the Church can be in error. It certainly makes their statements stronger though. Nevertheless, it would not be reasonable to read them as false unless there was strong reason to think they were (which, I agree, there is not).