N
NSmith
Guest
See the post two above yours,
- Status
blackforest
Well-known member
Phrase your answer in your own original words, please, because Truman does not adequately make a case for rights deprivation including the right to life.
T
TMC
Guest
I am not sure your point, as the Cardinal’s comments are entirely consistent with mine. He does not say that the new teaching is somehow optional, or an opinion. He is simply explaining that the new teaching is an “coherent development” of Catholic teaching. He does not suggest that Catholics are free to dissent if they think the Church erred in making that development.
N
NSmith
Guest
Of course not, because you are the one in error. He said,
Last edited:
N
NSmith
Guest
The author of the pamphlet is a man named Anscombe, as I said in my post, but the author doesn’t matter because I was not making any appeal to authority.
And he gives a very solid case, actually. Paraphrasing him, in my own words, the right to deprive anyone of their liberties is dependent on the duty of the state to protect the lives of the innocent, or the common good. Thus, they may imprison criminals, as you indubitably agree. If they do not have the means to imprison a criminal as to protect the innocent, or if a determined offender repeatedly violates the trust of his parole in order to harm the innocent, then the state has the right to deprive the man of his liberty to life, because they are justly exercising their duty to protect the innocent.
And he gives a very solid case, actually. Paraphrasing him, in my own words, the right to deprive anyone of their liberties is dependent on the duty of the state to protect the lives of the innocent, or the common good. Thus, they may imprison criminals, as you indubitably agree. If they do not have the means to imprison a criminal as to protect the innocent, or if a determined offender repeatedly violates the trust of his parole in order to harm the innocent, then the state has the right to deprive the man of his liberty to life, because they are justly exercising their duty to protect the innocent.
T
TMC
Guest
So, is your argument that the Church used to teach that the death penalty was allowable, but you agree that the Church now teaches that the death penalty is not allowable (and Catholics are bound by that teaching). Or are you arguing that the fact that the Church used to teach that the death penalty was allowable makes the current teachings somehow not binding on the faithful?
I certainly agree that the Church used to teach that the death penalty was acceptable, but that teaching has changed, as other teachings have changed.
N
NSmith
Guest
Precisely right. The death penalty’s admissibility is dependent on the social and political situation. The Church has exercised her right to guide the faithful about that situation, and has informed us that the death penalty is presently inadmissible. I believe that we owe the assent of will to this advisement, but I am not a state official, and as such I also trust that my lawful governors are aware of the present situation, although they possibly don’t regard the Church’s advice very highly.
The whole exercise of the thread has been to avoid invalidating the wisdom and teaching of the Church in the past, which was timely and proper for the circumstances then, and also to show that there has not been a fundamental change in moral theology, but rather a further refinement of the same teaching that has always been in the deposit of faith.
The whole exercise of the thread has been to avoid invalidating the wisdom and teaching of the Church in the past, which was timely and proper for the circumstances then, and also to show that there has not been a fundamental change in moral theology, but rather a further refinement of the same teaching that has always been in the deposit of faith.
blackforest
Well-known member
If that is indeed the case, then he is expressing what the Church is; namely, the death penalty is inadmissible precisely because we have the means with modern technology and security to ensure that society is protected via life in prison. But this facet only describes the practical angle of the issue and is a far cry from your previous admission that the death penalty is across-the-board tantamount to “justice.”
N
NSmith
Guest
In reply to a false equivalency between abortion and the death penalty, I affirmed that under the proper circumstances the death penalty is the application of justice. Perhaps I worded my response too generally. The proper equivalency would be if someone supports the death penalty for the sake of retribution, and not for the common good, in which case such support would be equivalent to support for abortion, which generally seeks the killing of the unborn for the sake of convenience.
However, unlike abortion which has been directly named as intrinsically evil by the church, the death penalty’s admissibility depends on circumstance, and therefore is not intrinsically evil. According to the guidance in the USCCB Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, Catholics must prioritize opposition of intrinsically evil acts over other political issues, which indicates that these are not equivalent issues.
Relevant articles are paragraphs 22-26 and 31-34 and 37 in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - Part I - The U.S. Bishops’ Reflection on Catholic Teaching and Political Life | USCCB
Also, Pope Francis has stated he is against life without parole with similar passion as his statement against the death penalty. I won’t speculate about the practicality of the Holy Father’s advice.
However, unlike abortion which has been directly named as intrinsically evil by the church, the death penalty’s admissibility depends on circumstance, and therefore is not intrinsically evil. According to the guidance in the USCCB Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, Catholics must prioritize opposition of intrinsically evil acts over other political issues, which indicates that these are not equivalent issues.
Relevant articles are paragraphs 22-26 and 31-34 and 37 in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - Part I - The U.S. Bishops’ Reflection on Catholic Teaching and Political Life | USCCB
Also, Pope Francis has stated he is against life without parole with similar passion as his statement against the death penalty. I won’t speculate about the practicality of the Holy Father’s advice.
Last edited:
B
BornInMarch
Guest
If life imprisonment actually meant life imprisonment then I’d be fine with that as an alternative to the death penalty, but usually it just means “imprisonment until we forget all the heinous stuff you did”. If someone stabs a child to death just to prove he could then I don’t care how “rehabilitated” he is, he shouldn’t be free again.
R
Rau
Guest
You most certainly have expressed your understanding of those words. You’ve said they declare CP always (through time, place and circumstances) wrong to choose. And you overlook that the Church’s teaching for 2000 years (as @Ender has enumerated many times in the forum) has identified a right to apply CP. Therefore your position is that the Church erred for 2000 years in moral teaching. (That’s the “consequence” of you position to which I referred earlier.). Wow. Is that really your stance? What else is the Church wrong on?
Last edited:
R
Rau
Guest
The church’s perennial teaching was not that CP is allowable “now” (ie. at those times in the past) but rather “there can be times when CP is the right course of action”. As a teaching about morality, that must always be true.
Therefore, the church cannot teach today “there can never be a situation where CP is permissible”. It cannot list CP alongside abortion as an intrinsic evil. And note the CCC has not done so.
The CCC has made a reasoned statement about the applicability (admissibility) of CP today.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
I agree that there are different circumstances involved with the death penalty and abortion. I haven’t read the Pope’s statement on life without parole, but I haven’t heard of it making its way into the Catechism. The challenge of being Catholic is that we defend those who society LEAST wants to defend - the unborn child, the convicted murderer, the elderly and infirm, the mentally disabled.
@NSmith addresses the critical changes that have occurred over the last 2000 years. If a serial killer is running around the desert threatening various tribes with no means of secure detainment, there is a moral case for self-defense. Today, in a time of heavy tracking technology and maximum security prisons, it’s hard to make a case for killing somebody “just in case” the Dept. of Corrections is negligent in enabling an escapee. While it necessarily remains consistent on core matters of our faith, Magisterial teaching is not and cannot be 100% static.
R
Rau
Guest
I’ve no quarrel with that assessment. But it’s not the point I’m addressing as I think my posts have made clear.
E
Ender
Guest
The question has never been whether to accept what the church teaches, rather the argument has always been about what exactly is being taught.
If it is not intrinsically evil then the decision to use it or not is a judgment, and one that legitimately belongs to the State.
This is an assumption based on the wording of 2267 (1997 version), but this assumption requires one to ignore what was just stated in 2266 about the primary objective of punishment, which is in fact retribution. The phrase “redress the disorder” has contributed to the confusion.
No one is calling for punishment to be dropped altogether. Just that death is no longer a fitting punishment in a culture that has a sense of a right to kill.
T
ThomasMT
Guest
As much as many here will contest the legitimacy of the source, the content is pretty clear and speaks for itself.
T
ThomasMT
Guest
And here is a source that would be more welcome by the CAF community (obviously). What it boils down to, IMHO, is more ambiguity on yet another already settled issue.
Last edited:
T
TMC
Guest
I certainly agree that the Church used to teach differently on the death penalty. I am not sure what your point is, however. If your point is that the fact that the Church once taught differently means that the current teaching is contingent, or prudential or otherwise not binding or subject to individual opinions, I cannot agree with that.
Do we agree that the Church currently teaches that the Catholics cannot support the death penalty, and that that teaching is obligatory?
Do we agree that the Church currently teaches that the Catholics cannot support the death penalty, and that that teaching is obligatory?
O
o_mlly
Guest
No, the claim is not an assumption but a citation from St. JPII’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae p. 56.o_mlly:
This is an assumption based on the wording of 2267 (1997 version), but this assumption requires one to ignore what was just stated in 2266 about the primary objective of punishment, which is in fact retribution. The phrase “ redress the disorder ” has contributed to the confusion.
While I agree that their is a need to clarify the latest revision under Pope Francis, I hold that JPII’s revision was a reasonable development of doctrine that maintained the constant teaching of the Magisterium that the state possesses a conditioned right to capital punishment adding a new condition (circumstance) based on new penal technologies.
Last edited:
- Status