- Status
E
Ender
Guest
Now if we only knew what “inadmissible” meant in this context.
Bishop’s conference 2018:
Q: “What does inadmissible mean?”
A: “It is an eloquent ambiguity.”
Apparently it is not all that eloquent given that no one can actually explain it.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Am I the only one who thinks the Pope’s treatment of the issue in Fratelli Tutti was a softening of the ambiguous Catechism paragraph which could more easily be read as a per se judgment of its immorality?
After affirming the importance of proportionate punishment, the arguments he lays out for why we should support its abolition out do not seem to be based on a principled rejection, but on the various abuses, the message it sends in our time, and the general Christian approaches to seeking mercy and that the guilty be converted and live (especially in light of the citations to Pope St. Nicholas I and St. Augustine, which both confirm the liceity in principle, while urging Christians to try and saved all from death).
After affirming the importance of proportionate punishment, the arguments he lays out for why we should support its abolition out do not seem to be based on a principled rejection, but on the various abuses, the message it sends in our time, and the general Christian approaches to seeking mercy and that the guilty be converted and live (especially in light of the citations to Pope St. Nicholas I and St. Augustine, which both confirm the liceity in principle, while urging Christians to try and saved all from death).
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
IMO a Catholic is morally obliged to advocate for creating a justice system where capital punishment is no longer used. An everyday average person not involved in public office might not have any direct role in that happening, but at the very least it is something they can prayer about concerning those who are vulnerable: prisoners, refugees, the poor, the sick, the elderly, the neglected, the unborn, the unwanted, etc. If they refuse to prayer for those things out of conviction because they prefer a world where the strong are worshipped and the vulnerable are dehumanized, then that is a sin of omission. Prayer has the power to move mountains.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I was hoping for something stronger, frankly, but I don’t think it is a softening from the Catechism. He gives a lot of practical arguments against the death penalty, but he also calls it morally inadequate and “inadmissible” and condemns all punishment that is based on vindictiveness or vengeance. He also warns that God will require a reckoning for the taking of human life. So I would say it is actually a bit stronger than the Catechism, but not as strong as many would like (possibly including himself).
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
Maybe, but even the reference to inadequacy is attributed to John Paul II, and cited as Evangelium Vitae 56, so I read it with the same understanding as referring to its application given the circumstances ("…better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person").
I’m not sure how you can desire something stronger without coming to an absolute condemnation, which would cast serious doubt on other doctrines. If the Church has been wrong about a literal life-and-death point of morality for 2000 years, what other points have been deceived about? (unfortunately, there are some commentators out there who would love such a precedence to than justify to jettisoning other moral points…the seamless garment needs to remain seamless and not be torn).
I’m not sure how you can desire something stronger without coming to an absolute condemnation, which would cast serious doubt on other doctrines. If the Church has been wrong about a literal life-and-death point of morality for 2000 years, what other points have been deceived about? (unfortunately, there are some commentators out there who would love such a precedence to than justify to jettisoning other moral points…the seamless garment needs to remain seamless and not be torn).
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
We know the current Pope has reached such a judgement and expressed it with high conviction. The recent prior Popes expressed a slightly different judgement. The notion of “intrinsic evil” is not “highfalutin philosophy”. It is a basic concept in moral theology. An act which is “intrinsically evil” is always / in every circumstance wrong to choose.
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
Given he is formulating a judgement about the merits - how could he have been “stronger”?
I’ve not yet read the document, but did he provide scriptural support for this? There is scriptural support for CP, so I assume the “reckoning” you refer to is limited to certain circumstances.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I don’t want to reargue this issue, but suffice to say I don’t see it that way. The Church came to understand several other developments in doctrine in ways that seemed like 180 changes when the development was made. Those are all well accepted now. The same will be true of this development in time.
E
Ender
Guest
It seems clear that nothing stronger is possible. He cannot be unaware of the US bishops’ comment that “inadmissible” was an ambiguous term, they said that two years ago, yet he repeated the term in this encyclical with no further explanation.
I mean to be very careful about what I say here so as not to give anyone the occasion to complain that I’m acting as if I know more than the pope. There are, however, some reasonable concerns to be raised.
I don’t dispute this, but here is some context for that claim:
It is the nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church(1) 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, 1999)
(1) The two exceptions are Tertullian, who died outside the Church, and Lactanctius.
I have commented on this point before so I’ll repeat what I’ve already said: protection is a secondary objective of punishment, and does not of itself determine the extent of the punishment. It is the primary objective that must be satisfied, not a secondary one.
Finally, the meaning of this paragraph pretty much escapes me completely.
270. I ask Christians who remain hesitant on this point, and those tempted to yield to violence in any form, to keep in mind the words of the book of Isaiah: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares” (2:4). For us, this prophecy took flesh in Christ Jesus who, seeing a disciple tempted to violence, said firmly: “Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword” ( Mt 26:52). These words echoed the ancient warning: “I will require a reckoning for human life. Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed” ( Gen 9:5-6). Jesus’ reaction, which sprang from his heart, bridges the gap of the centuries and reaches the present as an enduring appeal.
I don’t think this encyclical helped clarify the subject.
R
Rau
Guest
All true - but if I may repeat myself also - that does not compel CP (as a proportional punishment) for any crime. Protection, however, might compel CP in special circumstances.
E
Ender
Guest
So it is claimed, but that is an assertion, not an argument, and it isn’t obvious why we should ignore the plain meaning of Gn 9:5-6, which does compel it.
I understand the argument, however CP cannot be valid in any circumstance if it is inherently unjust, but if it is a just punishment then why should it be reserved only for “special” circumstances?
Last edited:
The ordinary lay person will probably never use the term ‘intrinsically evil’ in their life. Especially outside the US which is the only country that desperately clings to the death penalty as a divine right. It seems to me that outside the US the death penalty was abolished without much theological highfalutin language at all.Motherwit:
We know the current Pope has reached such a judgement and expressed it with high conviction. The recent prior Popes expressed a slightly different judgement. The notion of “intrinsic evil” is not “highfalutin philosophy”. It is a basic concept in moral theology. An act which is “intrinsically evil” is always / in every circumstance wrong to choose.
R
Rau
Guest
None is needed to make a judgement call about what is best these days. To make a call that CP is always and everywhere wrong - that is a matter of interpreting God’s law. You may view that as highfalutin theology.
That’s what I mean. Other countries have left it to the legal and social processes without needing to object on a religious principle. The US process on the other hand is being influenced by the false claim that abolition is against Church teaching. The Church is obliged to push back against this false witness.Motherwit:
None is needed to make a judgement call about what is best these days. To make a call that CP is always and everywhere wrong - that is a matter of interpreting God’s law. You may view that as highfalutin theology.
T
TMC
Guest
He could have further clarified the scope of the Church’s teaching, given that some Catholics are erroneously claiming that this is somehow an optional teaching.
Yes, of course he provides extensive support, both scriptural and otherwise. No, he does not limit his teaching to “certain circumstances”. Why not just actually read the document?
R
Rau
Guest
I’ve never heard that claim. For many years the church has acknowledged that a state may have recourse to the death penalty but not that it must be on the statute books.
The present Pope seems to go far beyond repudiating the claim that CP needs to be on the statute books
R
Rau
Guest
I’ve never heard of an optional teaching. Soundly held prudential judgement - as social teaching tends to be - sure, that exists. But if you are suggesting that, in light of the statements of Francis I, anyone who advocates for CP as worth retaining on the books, or applying in any particular case whatsoever, must sin, I’d have to disagree. And I’m a strong opponent of CP.
- Status