Historically the Church affirmed the death penalty could be justified in the face of arguments such as that of the anabaptists who claimed it could never be justified. Today we have the other extreme. The argument that it can never be unjust in any circumstance. That is wrong. If it harms the common good, it is unjustified and the Church corrects in her capacity as moral teacher.
- Status
It was never ‘good’. It was regarded as necessary to the times and could be justified on that basis. Today as the Catechism states.
CCC2267 …Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,i and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
If you mistakenly thought that the early Fathers taught that the death penalty was always ‘good’ no matter what, the Church has corrected that mistake now. It is only justified if it serves the common good.
CCC2267 …Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,i and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
If you mistakenly thought that the early Fathers taught that the death penalty was always ‘good’ no matter what, the Church has corrected that mistake now. It is only justified if it serves the common good.
None of these quotes prove that the death penalty doesn’t serve the common good. All it proves is that there was a time in the past when it was necessary to the common good in the absence of a more humane alternative. An alternative we have today which demands that that humane alternative makes the death penalty unnecessary and cruel.
And I might add that per Pope Leo XIII s assessment, ie. obstinate heretics disturbing the ecclesiastical order with their false claims, might not fare well for modern resisters of the Magisterium.
And I might add that per Pope Leo XIII s assessment, ie. obstinate heretics disturbing the ecclesiastical order with their false claims, might not fare well for modern resisters of the Magisterium.
The Church and Popes have been addressing matters of war, punishment, social injustice since it’s first days in the model of Christ. Each Pope in his day has been a notable moral voice in all those matters. It’s just modernist heresy to relegate the current Magisterium as not having competency in these matters.
M
MarkoB0726
Guest
Ab.So.Lute.Ly.
No we do not have a higher moral awareness than the apostles.
By the way, different form of slavery.
Thank you.
[/quote]
Compendium of the Social Doctrine - Pope Benedict XII
405. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty , even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”.[833] Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”.[834] Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835] The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”.[836] The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.
That’s what the Catholic Church teaches.
By the way, different form of slavery.
Thank you.
[/quote]
Compendium of the Social Doctrine - Pope Benedict XII
405. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty , even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”.[833] Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”.[834] Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835] The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”.[836] The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.
That’s what the Catholic Church teaches.
E
Ender
Guest
No one has argued that doctrines cannot develop; that has never been an issue, but not every change can be considered a development. The church has been reasonably clear about what development is, and what it is not.
“A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started” (Newman)
“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” (Cardinal Dulles)
Other changes are irrelevant to the question of whether this change (as you understand it) represents legitimate development. Given that it reverses a previous teaching (held for 2018 years), and now sides with earlier heretics, it is not, so either the pope erred in pronouncing it or you have erred in interpreting it.
The justness of the punishment was never doubted, but the question of justness in particular instances can be, and if the application of the punishment was harmful to society as a whole it was not - in that circumstance - considered just.
K
kapp19
Guest
No, it is not. It is the current Pope’s opinion which he has decided to push very publicly. It is reminiscent of John XXII.
It is necessary to read it as prudential exhortation, even if that is an unnatural reading.
We are not the wisest, most merciful people ever. How arrogant to think so.
Do you know that Pius V had priests put to death in the Papal States? (Not for violent crimes, either.) Well, he is a saint.
Pope Benedict XVI was responsible for that statement from the Compendium. Not Francis.Motherwit:
No, it is not. It is the current Pope’s opinion which he has decided to push very publicly. It is reminiscent of John XXII.
And of course Pope JPII made no bones about where the course of the Church was going.
“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).
“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. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
The growing movement inside our Church that is attempting to strip the Magisterium of all authority as a moral teacher of mankind is a work of the devil in my opinion.
R
Rau
Guest
Agreed. The church has taught for 2000 years that CP may in some cases do that. It has never taught that CP is/can never be a good.
If it was never good (and could never be good) it would be intrinsically evil and there is no such declaration of that! Acts of CP can be good. In our theology, Human Acts can’t be both evil and justified.
That might be a bit alarmist. Where do you find this movement in evidence?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
True. It’s a judgement we could all make but can’t know whether we correctly judge the matter. Francis 1 has offered as strongly a worded judgement as he could. The only meaning I can attach to the term “inadmissible” is - “unthinkable”.
R
Rau
Guest
Who has made that argument? CP for stealing an apple is ok? Why would such a claim be taken seriously?
C
chevalier
Guest
The way it seems to me, Francis’s line is that circumstances in which the death penalty could be justifiable do not exist in practice any more and have almost never existed before. This appears to be a judgment of the practical reason, and as far as is my understanding the Magisterium’s binding force only applies to moral rules. As such there doesn’t even really seem to have come a change. No one’s purporting to present the death penalty as intrinsically evil.
This is the perennial problem of how the the secular order (including the collective sovereign a.k.a. ‘the People’) doesn’t get to autonomously decide morality.
Well, the problem is that ‘political issues’ are rarely political alone. The mere fact an issue enters political debate does not make it stop being a moral issue or immunize it to moral or ethical criticism and thus the ambit of the pulpit, so to say.
This is the perennial problem of how the the secular order (including the collective sovereign a.k.a. ‘the People’) doesn’t get to autonomously decide morality.
Every encyclical or address that involves climate change and it’s social effect, economic injustice and greed, the death penalty and abolition, there are is a movement claiming to be the Catholic voice that say the Church needs to stay out of these issues and be quiet.Motherwit:
That might be a bit alarmist. Where do you find this movement in evidence?
Ender regularly claims that the death penalty can never be unjust. It would merely be unwise.Motherwit:
Who has made that argument? CP for stealing an apple is ok? Why would such a claim be taken seriously?
G
graciew
Guest
This is a blog.
No author either…
Why don’t you pick one of these and post the original source?
Aside from the death penalty or not, one cannot argue from an anonymous blog like this , (name removed by moderator).
I ve been doing a bit of the homework for you.
I haven’t been able to find neither the Preface of the Book of Cannon Law in reference to Pope Leo XIII
And neither Epistle VI in full.Pope Innocent I
Can you find any of these two for example from verifiable source? Original if possible?
Again, it really isn’t to engage in the topic itself but the way sources are presented.
No author either…
Why don’t you pick one of these and post the original source?
Aside from the death penalty or not, one cannot argue from an anonymous blog like this , (name removed by moderator).
I ve been doing a bit of the homework for you.
I haven’t been able to find neither the Preface of the Book of Cannon Law in reference to Pope Leo XIII
And neither Epistle VI in full.Pope Innocent I
Can you find any of these two for example from verifiable source? Original if possible?
Again, it really isn’t to engage in the topic itself but the way sources are presented.
Last edited:
G
graciew
Guest
What is Ipieta? Do full documents appear there?
Epistle VI is the one I have been interested In for a long time.
Cited yes, but I haven’t been able to check the originals and in context
Edited: I see it is an app
Can we find the full documents , epistles , there? Since you have the app can you post epistle VI in full her for example?
Epistle VI is the one I have been interested In for a long time.
Cited yes, but I haven’t been able to check the originals and in context
Edited: I see it is an app
Can we find the full documents , epistles , there? Since you have the app can you post epistle VI in full her for example?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
I guess you do see claims that it is not for the church to be dogmatic around these matters - whether we burn some amount of coal or nuclear fuel or setup solar panels is not a matter of faith and morals. The principle that we ought take some care of the planet is undeniable - how much care and by what measures are matters of judgement. In most cases, I don’t think the Church is getting into the weeds - but there will be some who don’t even want the principles addressed lest it interfere or impede them in some way.
The quote you’ve included does not really address your claim here. From what I’ve read of Ender, he would claim that CP is a proportionate punishment for murder. I believe he would also say that whether applying it is just or not is a matter of prudential judgement - and that if one’s honest judgement is that it does more good than harm, and it is being done for proper reasons, the one authorising acts properly. And finally, I think he would object to using CP as punishment for crimes for which is not a proportionate measure. But let’s not debate those matters - better Ender comes back to you himself.
- Status