R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The polarization of this country isn’t Catholic vs. Protestant. It’s paganism vs. Christianity.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
NSmith
Guest
I have heard much the same tone-deaf response from my Protestant friends on Scriptural interpretations. The catechism says “inadmissible” which you interpret as a statement about the moral nature of capital punishment, and which Rau interprets as a prudential judgement about the suitability of capital punishment in light of the circumstances of our time. Both result in the same practical effect, which is opposition to the death penalty, but your interpretation also poses a problem, because doctrines that are taught in one time cannot be abrogated at a later time. That’s not how the Church works.I am not expressing an interpretation. I am just posting the actual words of the Catechism.
Your interpretation also contradicts the Catechism itself, as I’ve pointed out twice before. Therefore, you’re interpretation is incorrect. I am not sure why you are stubbornly refusing to give an inch on this. No one is proposing anything rebellious or controversial.
O
o_mlly
Guest
The footnote to Pope Francis’ revision to 2267 reads:
Rather than the limited audience of an “Address”, one would rather Pope Francis used an “Encyclical”, an ecclesiastical letter meant for wide circulation, to introduce this development of doctrine.
Nevertheless, the Pope writes “per se”, i.e., through itself, the death penalty is anti-gospel, evil in its object. Correct, of course, but the oft cited New Testament reference in support of the state’s right to execute is not in the gospels but in Paul’s epistle to the Romans 13:4. Could one, using the same logical structure, claim the death penalty is not anti-New Testament?
I do hope that we get clarification and soon. The institutional church has enough wedge issues today that threaten her unity. As Pope Francis teaches, our deposit of faith has a future else we deny the action of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ. Faith and right reason must cohere. I am hopeful.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/franc...20171011_convegno-nuova-evangelizzazione.html“It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor (emphasis mine)”
ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
TO PARTICIPANTS IN THE MEETING PROMOTED BY THE
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR PROMOTING THE NEW EVANGELIZATION
Rather than the limited audience of an “Address”, one would rather Pope Francis used an “Encyclical”, an ecclesiastical letter meant for wide circulation, to introduce this development of doctrine.
Nevertheless, the Pope writes “per se”, i.e., through itself, the death penalty is anti-gospel, evil in its object. Correct, of course, but the oft cited New Testament reference in support of the state’s right to execute is not in the gospels but in Paul’s epistle to the Romans 13:4. Could one, using the same logical structure, claim the death penalty is not anti-New Testament?
I do hope that we get clarification and soon. The institutional church has enough wedge issues today that threaten her unity. As Pope Francis teaches, our deposit of faith has a future else we deny the action of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ. Faith and right reason must cohere. I am hopeful.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
It does not. The Catechism is very clear on this point.Your interpretation also contradicts the Catechism itself, as I’ve pointed out twice before.
Really? Several posters have claimed that the Catechism itself is not binding on them, deriding it as merely an opinion. That is both rebellious and controversial.No one is proposing anything rebellious or controversial.
If Catholics choose to dissent from this teaching, that is their business. Certainly most Catholics dissent from some teaching or other. But they should not pretend that the Church does not teach as it does. The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is clear and straightforward.
T
TMC
Guest
What more clarification is needed beyond what you posted? The death penalty is per se contrary to the Gospel. That is pretty clear.I do hope that we get clarification and soon.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I think this thread would not exist if the teaching had the clarity of St. JPII’s development of the same doctrine.What more clarification is needed beyond what you posted? The death penalty is per se contrary to the Gospel. That is pretty clear.
N
NSmith
Guest
Yes, the act of killing is always per se a misfortune, or an evil. That does not mean that it is never permissible or even just, such as in a just war, or accidentally in self-defense. Pope Francis was clearly indicating that the death penalty is and has always been an assault on human dignity, which is manifestly true because it results in the death of a person. That does not mean that it is never justified, neither does it mean that the Church in the past failed to recognize it as such. Saying it is contrary to the Gospel is strong language, but as I pointed out in an earlier post, revenge belongs to God. This is what Pope Francis means when he says:Nevertheless, the Pope writes “per se”, i.e., through itself , the death penalty is anti-gospel
Now, as you say, the Pope did not teach this in an encyclical, or in an Apostolic Constitution, and so his teaching is subject to error. I imagine if it does become an infallible definition in the future it will be more carefully worded to avoid discontinuity.only God is the true judge and guarantor
Catechisms are meant as a summary of teaching, and they are only binding insofar as they accurately express what the magisterium teaches. As we’ve been debating, the wording in the catechism lends itself to the error that you hold and defend. I would not go as far as to call it an opinion, like others do. But no catechism is “binding,” else the Church would make sure to forbid to use of older catechisms, which are still permitted and often used. My RCIA used the most recent revision, but I have friends that were catechized using the Baltimore Catechism, and I referenced the Roman Catechism as well on some points.Several posters have claimed that the Catechism itself is not binding on them, deriding it as merely an opinion.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I think this thread would not exist if Catholics were willing to accept the clear teaching of the Church.I think this thread would not exist if the teaching had the clarity of St. JPII’s development of the same doctrine.
T
TMC
Guest
OK, so now your position is apparently that you clearly understand what the Church teaches and the author of the CC 2267 (Pope Francis) does not. So who should Catholics that are unsure on this point go with, NSmith, or Pope Francis? I will go with Francis.Catechisms are meant as a summary of teaching, and they are only binding insofar as they accurately express what the magisterium teaches
I think the Church would be very surprised to learn this. So how does a Catholic determine which parts of the Church’s teachings are valid and binding?But no catechism is “binding,”
O
o_mlly
Guest
No, only the act of directly killing an innocent human being is intrinsically evil.Yes, the act of killing is always per se a misfortune, or an evil.
The confusion in comparing permissible indirect killing with the state’s act is that the state’s act directly kills one who in the moment is an innocent human being. An unjust aggressor in acts of self-defense and just wars is no longer an unjust aggressor at the moment the aggressive act ends. The convicted criminal is not an unjust aggressor in the execution chamber.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Straw manning does not move the thread forward.OK, so now your position is apparently that you clearly understand what the Church teaches and the author of the CC 2267 (Pope Francis) does not.
N
NSmith
Guest
I mean to say that it is never a happy occurrence when someone is killed, even if the killing was just. It doesn’t make the act intrinsically evil, but the death of the person was still a bad thing.
There are two ways in which someone may be considered an aggressor, either as a direct threat or as someone who is, by their occupation, party to a threat. A soldier in an unjust war that is sleeping in his camp is still an unjust aggressor, even though he does not pose an immediate danger.
A criminal is still an unjust aggressor, because he has demonstrated his disdain for the lives and safety of others, even when he is detained and therefore not an immediate threat. This does not mean that he is stripped of his dignity, but it does permit, in the situation where there is no other option, the State to lawfully execute him.
There are two ways in which someone may be considered an aggressor, either as a direct threat or as someone who is, by their occupation, party to a threat. A soldier in an unjust war that is sleeping in his camp is still an unjust aggressor, even though he does not pose an immediate danger.
A criminal is still an unjust aggressor, because he has demonstrated his disdain for the lives and safety of others, even when he is detained and therefore not an immediate threat. This does not mean that he is stripped of his dignity, but it does permit, in the situation where there is no other option, the State to lawfully execute him.
O
o_mlly
Guest
We do. Only the unclear teachings are problematic.I think this thread would not exist if Catholics were willing to accept the clear teaching of the Church.
Today’s Catholic laity do not simply read the latest Papal Bull with their morning coffee and say, “amen”. We are expected to internalize the teaching, making it our own. In order to do that, we must understand the rationale that the novelty in the teaching is developmental and not reversal.
N
NSmith
Guest
A Catholic accepts what he is taught in good faith, if it is taught by a lawful superior. If the teaching presents some difficulty, then he seeks clarification of the matter from his pastor or from other trusted superiors in the Church.So how does a Catholic determine which parts of the Church’s teachings are valid and binding?
It’s not that complicated. Accept the catechism in good faith. If it says something that contradicts itself or previous tradition, ask for clarification or seek it out. You are elevating the authority of the catechism above even the authority of Scripture. When a verse presents difficulty, do you not seek an explanation? Or do you accept and hold multiple contradictory beliefs about Scripture? Obviously no one is expected to behave without right reason.
T
TMC
Guest
Where is the straw man? Multiple posters have said either that they think that the Catechism’s teaching on the death penalty is merely Pope Francis’ opinion, or said that they believe it is inconsistent with the deposit of faith, suggesting it can therefore can be rejected in favor of their own interpretation.Straw manning does not move the thread forward.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Yes, the uniformed soldier in an unjust war remains an active aggressor (because he is an immanent threat) until the soldier surrenders.A soldier in an unjust war that is sleeping in his camp is still an unjust aggressor, even though he does not pose an immediate danger.
A criminal is still an unjust aggressor, because he has demonstrated his disdain for the lives and safety of others, even when he is detained and therefore not an immediate threat.
But no, the constrained-convicted criminal is not an unjust aggressor, i.e., he is not an immediate threat. And the preventative killing of a possible unjust aggressor is illegal and immoral. Think of the chaos that would ensue if otherwise.
N
NSmith
Guest
Or rather the opinion of respected Cardinals that commented on the revision and who have clarified the intent of the Pope’s development of Catholic social doctrines, in continuity with Pope St. John Paul II’s initiative.…in favor of their own interpretation.
In the Letter to the Bishops Cardinal Ladaria explained that the revision of n. 2267 of the CCC “expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium” and said “these teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime”.
N
NSmith
Guest
I was referred to Mr Truman’s Degree by Anscombe yesterday, which says, and I think rightly, about the death penalty,
If a gangrenous limb can be treated without amputation, then of course that is preferable. Due to the clarifications by Cardinal Ladaria, the teaching of JPII, and the article by Tim Staples, I believe that the Church teaches that there is always a better way to handle such criminals, and thus the death penalty is inadmissible in the current context, because to do otherwise would be contrary to the Gospel.The death penalty itself is a completely different matter [from warfare or self-defense]. The state is not fighting the criminal who is condemned to death. That is why the death penalty is not indispensable. People keep on discussing whether the point of the death penalty is deterrence or vengeance; it is neither. Not deterrence, because nobody has proved anything about that, and people think what they think according with their own prejudices. And not vengeance, because that is nobody’s business. Confusion arises on this subject because the state is said, and correctly said, to punish the criminal, and punishment suggests vengeance. Therefore many humane people dislike the idea and prefer such notions as correction and rehabilitation. But the action of the state in depriving a man of his rights, up to his very life, has to be considered from two sides. First, from that of the man himself. If he could justly say, “Why have you done this to me? I have not deserved it”, then the state would be acting with injustice. Therefore he must first be guilty, and only as punishment has the state any right to inflict anything on him. The concept of punishment is our one safeguard against being done ‘good’ to, in ways involving a deprivation of rights, by impudent powerful people. Second, from the side of the state, divine retributive justice is not its affair: it only has to protect its people and restrain malefactors. The ground of its right to deprive of liberty and even life is only that the malefactor is a nuisance, like a gangrenous limb. Therefore it can cut him off entirely, if his crime is so bad that he could not justly protest, “I have not deserved this.” But when I say that the sole ground of the state’s right to kill him is that he is a nuisance, I only mean that he is a nuisance qua malefactor. The lives of the innocent are the actual point of society…
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
It’s everything vs. everything. This culture would politicize a booger if it could.
blackforest
Well-known member
The latter is simply your opinion, and certainly not Church teaching. How do you define justice? Why is it justice and not vengeance?Abortion is the murder of an innocent, the death penalty is the application of justice.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.