Just so there is no confusion here, this is what I understand to be the relevant doctrine:It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.
Teaching something for 20 centuries doesn’t make it right. The Bishops of today and the two Popes I cited are making judgment based on 20 centuries of advancement in human understanding. That is the only perspective in which 20 centuries is relevant.
The idea that all life is sacred and the conviction to protect it is not selective. The commandment not to kill is self explanatory and requires no further definition by the Church.
Then, I will be happy to be in error with these Bishops and with the Pope.
Yes, man is made in God’s image, and that which is made in His image and made by Him is not anyone’s to take. As for the life of a murderer being forfeit, then I suppose that probably goes for the murderer of the murderer as well. It is ludicrous to suppose that killing people to teach people that killing people is wrong is a very sound idea.
The amount of time for which one is wrong about something doesn’t make it any more right. The longer one takes a wrong headed stance only makes it that much more of a pity. The Church was wrong about torture during the Inquisition. Making the Inquisition last 20 centuries wouldn’t havemade it right. It would make 20 centuries of error. Why do you insist on making the amount of time something is believed part of your position? It holds no weight and only makes the issue sadder.
I don’t think God is that litigious in His thinking.
Do you stand with every scientist and Church father who came before Copernicus, Galileo and Newton on the nature of the universe? Ideas change as humanity progresses. No Church Father who came before JPII had ever used the internet either, but you are on the internet acting as though the way things were is the way things ought to be simply based on the fact that it’s the way it was. Should you write your opinion on a codex and send it to me in a jar, instead of using new mediums to transmit them? Or would you try some other line of reasoning, perhaps something that holds more water than “that’s how it was.”
There’s nothing wrong with the wording of this old local catechism as long as one recognizes that it’s very simplified and there’s a lot more to what the Church teaches than this. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a better source, overall, having been promulgated for use throughout the universal Church and providing more information.
You are very cavalier about accepting the church could be so mistaken for so long about a matter of this significance. If 20 centuries of teaching about capital punishment is wrong why would we not be justified in believing that other major doctrines are in error as well?
Nonetheless the church has repeatedly explained that capital punishment is not a violation of the fifth commandment. Are you unaware of this?
The church teaches otherwise.*“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” *(Pius XII, 1952)
Executing a murderer is not murder. The church has been very explicit about this.The just use of this power,* far from involving the crime of murder**, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. *(Catechism of Trent)
It is not done to teach others, it is used as an act of just retribution.
Ask this question of aspirant, he accepts that church doctrine here has not changed. In fact this is very likely a teaching that cannot change.There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. (Fr. John Hardon, 1998)
Ideas may change but morality does not and it is no small thing to hold that the church could have been so wrong for so long on so important an issue. I don’t think you recognize the implication of your position. This is how the church understands her role:"… the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church" (Dei Verbum)
Nope, not changed. Developed. Recourse is now extremely restricted and will, like just war criteria, probably become even moreso.
Since you accept that the doctrines on capital punishment have not changed then there should be no reason for you to object to the way the doctrine was explained in the past. I object to using 2267 because it is in fact a major departure from anything that preceded it. If you prefer we can agree to use the explanation in the Catechism of Trent which was the catechism of the church for 400 years. Surely if the doctrine has not changed then that explanation should be as valid today as when it was promulgated.
And what did it develop from? What theological insight is provided by assessing the penal capabilities of modern societies? In order to evaluate the accuracy of the claims 2267 makes about the ability of modern prisons to provide public security where would you look if not to sources like the Bureau of Justice Statistics? It would clearly be useless to read anything written in the entire history of the church. How can doctrine develop when it is based on statistical analysis rather than theological insight?
That is your opinion. The Catechism, as Church teaching does not need further support. It is not infallible, but it is Church teaching. This is something you either get, or don’t. That is why defense of Church doctrine should be done in the apologetics section. Here, it is assumed that the Church has the authority to teach.
Yes, it does. In fact all throughout that book you will find innumerable end notes and citations to support the assertions being made; practically every section has its own source reference. There is nothing to support 2267.
What appears to be infallible is the Traditional teaching on the subject. 2267 is not infallible because it is not doctrine and a good argument can be made that it is not even correct.
Yes the Traditional teaching of the Church is infallible.
Not exactly. The Traditional teaching is this:Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty…
Hello Ender: I am starting to conclude that the core of this discussion is mostly a matter of the contexts from which you and I view our relationships to God and the world around us. While I agree with those such as the US Bishops, Pope JP II and the current Pope on the idea that the death penalty is wrong, you are more inclined to follow such things as official doctrine, and to look for direction from the letter of the law. We have differing views on how such things translate into reality and become manifest on our lives. My sense is that you might well feel that my abstinence from the cycle of violence, killing and retribution that goes on in this world is some sort of infraction of divine intent. I see it differently. I perceive that in much the same way that God has seen fit to create different levels of species on this planet, He has also found purpose in creating different levels of beings within a given species. Perhaps your purpose within this species, like the purpose of the Pharisees who also found it more agreeable to live by the letter of the law, is to carry out such things as “legal” killing in accordance with what you feel the letter of the law to be. But I also allow for the idea that God created people like me, who are more inclined to let people like you take responsibility for the taking of life insofar as the letter of the law permits you to. I choose to live on a different plane of being, wherein my presence in this world promotes a sense of mercy and forgiveness for all, insofar it is practicable, and not to take the life of another based on a need for retribution. If God truly has a need for people to carry out acts of retribution based on the archaic tribal laws of an iron age culture such as the Jews of the Old Testament, He has plenty of people like yourself still around to do such things. He made people like me to try and advance His creation a bit forward to a level where we explore the causes for violent behavior and try to create systems that help to rehabilitate and find useful purpose for the lives of people who have fallen into the sway of evil. Not that the systems we have in place today accomplish that very well, but perhaps the task at hand is to evolve to that. Basically, I am happy to let you hold down the old fort as you seem inclined to do, while I live out my God given proclivity to move out and evolve.
Not exactly. I believe JPII felt that capital punishment was inadvisable. He could hardly have taught that it was morally wrong if doctrine teaches that states have a moral right to impose it.
The church has always taught, even though the death penalty is the appropriate punishment for murder, that there could be justifiable reasons for not applying it. I believe this is why JPII opposed its use, not because it was immoral but because it was inadvisable.
I don’t mind being called a Neanderthal but I do take exception to the idea that church doctrine can be ignored by dismissively referring those who follow it as living by the letter of the law as opposed to those living on a higher plane who live by the spirit of the law. If doctrine teaches A and not B I see no justification in acting as if it taught B and not A.
Would this be a plane where doctrine is whatever you choose it to be?
It would be helpful if your plane of existence dealt with logic and facts. You don’t seem to have any understanding of what the church teaches on this subject. For example, can you explain what point is being made in CCC 2260? It’s one of those iron age, retribution based, OT thingies of which you so disapprove.
When you have evolved to the point where you think you can discuss what the church actually teaches, let me know.
Catechism and the Magisterium vs. some guy on the internet.
I think we should let Pope JPII speak for himself. Here is what he had to say on the matter:
I have gathered that, but I don’t believe I ever called you a Neanderthal. They weren’t from the iron age, which is the period I cited your philosophy as coming from.
There is no shame in being on the plane you’re on.
I love logic and facts - As a modern human, I logically disagree with our primitive ancestor’s ideas on the need for violent retribution, and I appreciate the fact that you have misrepresented at least one Pope (JPII) on the matter, and I also appreciate the fact that I have set the record straight on what he actually said. He was dead set against the death penalty. That’s another fact.
From the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, (No. 2266) :
As I said, “There’s nothing wrong with the wording of this old local catechism as long as one recognizes that it’s very simplified and there’s a lot more to what the Church teaches than this.”
Here you depart from Church teaching. The for teaching the faithCatechism of the Catholic Churchnorm, having been promulgated for use throughout the universal Church. It is “a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation… {The Catechism} is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.”
As I said before, morality itself does not change (Mt 22:36-40), the Church’s understanding of morality does. The Church’s understanding of divine revelation in Christ Jesus is always growing deeper and fuller, more robust, usually in response to new circumstances, questions, and explorations: “Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church.”
What pnewton says here is fully in keeping with the authentic teaching of the Church, for example:
As I already pointed out, this is not true. This is not novel, it is a more robust understanding of the Gospel’s commandments.
This is just nonsense. Even the writings of St. Thomas already restrict execution to safeguarding society. For example:
Thomas Aquinas said:
Blessed John Paul II’s teaching that punishment “ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases… when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society” is completely consistent with what St. Thomas and the earlier Catechism wrote, and the papal teaching furthermore demands of the faithful religious submission of mind and will.
Correct. And on that point I would say this: insofar as the well-being of my soul is concerned, I would rather be answer for being the condemned than to answer for being the one who carried out the sentence. Putting a person who has been rendered defenseless to death as a matter of retribution is a grave miscarriage of our responsibilities as divine creations, more worthy of beasts than humans. Yes, the death penalty can bring a soul to salvation. Cancer can bring a soul to salvation. A heart attack can do the same, or a plane wreck or a chronic illness. But so can kindness and mercy, and with regard to the attainment of the true holy character of our potential as humans, these kinder virtues serve us better than exacting punishment and cruelty beyond what is needed. And killing a person who is no longer a threat is beyond what is needed, senseless, and the handiwork of cruel and roughly hewn hearts, which by their very nature are in need of some serious correction in their ways if they hope to attain the kingdom of God.
Well expressed.