Capital punishment...again

[Richca]

Capital Punishment is no good. Why would Jesus Christ want someone to be killed early before they got a chance to find him in their life?

Capital punishment as a species of justice was commanded by God in the Law he gave for the Israelites in the Old Testament for various crimes and sins. St Paul says “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12). And there are innumerable texts in the Old Testament referring to the Law God gave to the Israelites through Moses as being perfect, holy, just, and good though the Old Law is not as perfect as the New Law of Christ. Accordingly, I don’t see how capital punishment considered in itself could be considered evil or intrinsically evil though maybe your not making that claim.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Accordingly, I don’t see how capital punishment considered in itself could be considered evil or intrinsically evil though maybe your not making that claim.

What you see it or do not see does not matter.

The Magisterium has spoken.

 

[Emeraldlady]

FranciscoN2001:

Capital Punishment is no good. Why would Jesus Christ want someone to be killed early before they got a chance to find him in their life?

Capital punishment as a species of justice was commanded by God in the Law he gave for the Israelites in the Old Testament for various crimes and sins. St Paul says “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12). And there are innumerable texts in the Old Testament referring to the Law God gave to the Israelites through Moses as being perfect, holy, just, and good though the Old Law is not as perfect as the New Law of Christ. Accordingly, I don’t see how capital punishment considered in itself could be considered evil or intrinsically evil though maybe your not making that claim.

How do you respond to the Church as Christs Church on earth and the Jewish scripture and legal authorities, all unanimous in condemnation of the death penalty today despite it being supposedly ‘commanded’ by Scripture. People who are claiming to have more expertise than the most recognised authorities on Scripture, need to prove some sort of alternate God given authority.

 

[MarlboroMan]

Thus far I have not recieved any arguments that defend the premise of the consequential argument out forward by the Catechism in regards to the American society. The Catechism does not say “Death penalty is inadmissible by its own merits” but only that the death penalty is inadmissible because of these reasons, therefore if those reasons are not applicable to a certain society then the conclusion of the argument cannot be expressed as a universal regardless of the invalidity of the premises in the society in question.

The Catechism is very clear that the death penalty is only inadmissible now because of XYZ, so if XYZ are not present in some society than it cannot be said to be inadmissible in that society. If and when the Catechism says the death penalty is inadmissible in all circumstances, at all times, and for all time by its very nature then I think we could argue about that, but it does not say this so why do we keep arguing about things it doesn’t say?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

then I think we could argue about that, but it does not say this so why do we keep arguing about things it doesn’t say?

Church authority has spoken.

Catholics are to work for the abolition of the death penalty wherever in the world it is still practiced.

 

[MarlboroMan]

The Church has spoken. If there are not adequate facilities to protect society, the killer is granted time to reflect and the opportunity to repent, and society will not be morally harmed by the execution (by a decrease in the respect for life and dignity) then the execution is morally lawful when carried out by the state.

All other interpretations are purely personal, and thus cannot be binding. Until such time as the teaching is developed further, that is.

Edit: in response to your points, Fr. I must explain, obviously the CDF letter is not personal. But we have to understand the letter in the light of what it is actually saying.

The catechism talks about XYZ Capital Punishments and says that those are inadmissible. The letter, when talking about Capital Punishment is talking about those XYZ Capital Punishments. It reaffirms that XYZ Capital Punishments are inadmissible.

The USA, unfortunately, does not qualify as an XYZ country. The letter is not addressing the USA, it is silent on the issue of USA Capital Punishments because the USA does not qualify under the rules of the Catechism: we do not have adequate facilities, we do allow plenty of time to repent, and capital punishment does not diminish our social respect for life.

The Magesterium is, of course, authoritative. And they have authoritatively ruled out XYZ Capital Punishments.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Church has spoken. If there are not adequate facilities to protect society, the killer is granted time to reflect and the opportunity to repent, and society will not be morally harmed by the execution (by a decrease in the respect for life and dignity) then the execution is morally lawful when carried out by the state.

All other interpretations are purely personal, and thus cannot be binding. Until such time as the teaching is developed further, that is.

Are you seriously trying to contend that the letter of Cardinal Ladaria, the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is making a “purely personal” interpretation when he is in fact acting precisely as the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

His Eminence decreed:

Pope Francis has reaffirmed that “today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been.” The death penalty, regardless of the means of execution, “entails cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.” Furthermore, it is to be rejected “due to the defective selectivity of the criminal justice system and in the face of the possibility of judicial error.” It is in this light that Pope Francis has asked for a revision of the formulation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty in a manner that affirms that “no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”

The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine. The new text, following the footsteps of the teaching of John Paul II in Evangelium vitæ , affirms that ending the life of a criminal as punishment for a crime is inadmissible…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Continued

All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine…

The new revision affirms that the understanding of the inadmissibility of the death penalty grew “in the light of the Gospel.”…

The new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church desires to give energy to a movement towards a decisive commitment to favor a mentality that recognizes the dignity of every human life and, in respectful dialogue with civil authorities, to encourage the creation of conditions that allow for the elimination of the death penalty where it is still in effect.

His Eminence’s letter, that was sent to every Catholic Bishop in the world, concludes:

The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 28 June 2018, has approved the present Letter, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on 13 June 2018, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1 August 2018, Memorial of Saint Alphonsus Liguori .

Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I.
Prefect

Giacomo Morandi
Titular Archbishop of Cerveteri
Secretary

To even postulate that this letter involves “purely personal” interpretations is beyond absurd. It is nothing short of blatantly ridiculous in the face of how the dicasteries work.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If and when the Catechism says the death penalty is inadmissible in all circumstances, at all times, and for all time by its very nature then I think we could argue about that, but it does not say this so why do we keep arguing about things it doesn’t say?

Have you read the letter which the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith promulgated, at the order of the Holy Father, addressed to the world’s Bishops, and which accompanied the revision of the Catechism, which was also sent to all the Bishops of the world?

This letter of the Cardinal Prefect has been posted repeatedly in this thread…so many times, in fact, that the Forum’s software keeps asking: “are you sure you want to post this again?”

The letter is clear – that is, moving forward, it involves all circumstances as well as every country which still practices the death penalty – thanks be to God a steadily declining number. There are no exceptions.

The death penalty, regardless of the means of execution, “entails cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment.”

What the Holy Father and the Congregation has written on the matter of the death penalty being morally inadmissible and unacceptable is CRYSTAL clear unless the reader has the reading comprehension level of a child – or, in fact, is fighting the Magisterium’s absolute and supreme authority to decree on this matter, which it absolutely and assuredly has. And that the faithful are compelled to give the assent of obsequium to this teaching, as mandated – whether they like it or not.

 

[Richca]

What I see in the new wording of the Catechism is the word ‘inadmissible’ and not ‘intrinsically evil’ or intrinsically or gravely disordered.

 

[Richca]

How do you respond to the Church as Christs Church on earth and the Jewish scripture and legal authorities, all unanimous in condemnation of the death penalty today despite it being supposedly ‘commanded’ by Scripture. People who are claiming to have more expertise than the most recognised authorities on Scripture, need to prove some sort of alternate God given authority.

‘Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, `I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken)’ (John 10: 34-35).

I would respond by just telling them to read the Bible which we believe to be the inspired word of God. The Bible itself, both the Old and New Testaments including Jesus, testifies that the revealed Law of the Old Covenant was given by God to the Israelites through Moses. The Church has always taught this and still does naturally (cf. CCC#1961). It appears from modern biblical scholarship that some various precepts of the Law other than the Decalogue seem to have pre-existed the Sinai Covenant in a similar form among various ancient Semitic peoples and may have been inserted into the Sinaitic ‘Book of the Covenant’ by Moses through God’s command and counsel and thus ratified and sanctioned by Him , for the entire Old Law of the Israelites is presented in the Bible as coming from God through Moses in the context of the events of Sinai.

As far as the view that is held today among the Catholic Church and the Jewish state of Israel concerning the death penalty, this is a different issue than the Old Testament Law of the ancient Israelites. Your claim that the Jewish state and all Jewish scholars today are unanimous in their condemnation of the death penalty is probably questionable unless you can provide some evidence. I recently read an article on a poll taken from the Jewish population in Israel which was fairly recent I believe and something like 33% said they were in favor of the death penalty. At any rate, Christians are not obligated to believe whatever present day Jews believe concerning the death penalty. And, sadly, they have extremely serious interpretative problems with the Old Testament in the person of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah, who alone is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Still, I feel very close to the Jewish people as Jesus, Mary, St Joseph, and the apostles were Hebrews and all the prophets, and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David.

At least presently, the entire body of the Catholic faithful, clergy and lay, is not entirely unanimous concerning the new teaching in the catechism on the death penalty. There are some catholic vocal critics and possibly many who are silent. And imo, we ought not be to quick to condemn those catholics who may have some misgivings about the new wording in the catechism which is only about two months old or so. I think they have reasonable misgivings and questions as I do myself not in the least of an unexpectant overnight conversion from essentially 2000 years of Church Tradition and of 1400 years of biblical teaching in the Old Testament prior to the coming of Christ.

 

[Ender]

In other words, sentences must be imposed based on what serves the common good. We look to the society to determine the harm and the appropriate redress.

I have agreed with this several times and addressed the concept of a just punishment quite specifically in post #349. Let me know if you take exception to anything I said there. I addressed it again in #389 in the context of comments from Pope Leo XIII.

 

[Ender]

Capital punishment as a species of justice was commanded by God in the Law he gave for the Israelites in the Old Testament for various crimes and sins. St Paul says “So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Romans 7:12). And there are innumerable texts in the Old Testament referring to the Law God gave to the Israelites through Moses as being perfect, holy, just, and good though the Old Law is not as perfect as the New Law of Christ. Accordingly, I don’t see how capital punishment considered in itself could be considered evil or intrinsically evil though maybe your not making that claim.

It is indeed difficult to accept that what was a heresy to believe before is a heresy not to believe today.

 

[exnihilo]

If and when the Catechism says the death penalty is inadmissible in all circumstances, at all times, and for all time by its very nature then I think we could argue about that, but it does not say this so why do we keep arguing about things it doesn’t say?

Even if the Catechism is changed further with a novel teaching that wouldn’t mean it has force. This whole thing is rather strange as the Catechism isn’t the Catholic Faith but is used now to modify or tweak it. The Catholic Faith being handed down means it can be found in many places and not just the Catechism. The Catechism isn’t even the primary source for the Faith. It should reflect constant teachings clarified over time. When it is changed in order to change the Faith then that is a very unusual thing.

When the Christian authorities and Jewish authorities in theology are all united in recognising the immorality ( extrinsic evil)of the death penalty today, as perfectly in keeping with Divine Law, how do these self appointed experts justify their accusations of ‘irresponsibility’ of Christs Church?

Modern Jewish authorities reject the very foundation of Christianity. Why would anyone consider them a good source for Christian doctrine? Beyond that educated people can invent some of the greatest lies. Common sense will serve anyone better than education.

 

[Canvas]

The USA, unfortunately, does not qualify as an XYZ country. The letter is not addressing the USA, it is silent on the issue of USA Capital Punishments because the USA does not qualify under the rules of the Catechism: we do not have adequate facilities, we do allow plenty of time to repent, and capital punishment does not diminish our social respect for life.

How do you get this when the revised 2267 says: 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”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

 

[exnihilo]

Works for with determination only describes what is happening. Whether it is working locally or globally doesn’t mean these alleged conditions exist worldwide. In fact if the conditions are met worldwide then these same conditions existed in many places since before Christ. That is because many places don’t have prisons as strong as in Europe and North America.

 

[hope]

It is either that or it is a change in doctrine. No it is not a development but a change a change that has me questioning. The only way I can hold on is to believe it is not binding or true.

 

[billsherman]

It is either that or it is a change in doctrine. No it is not a development but a change a change that has me questioning. The only way I can hold on is to believe it is not binding or true.

I’m not asking about the death penalty here, because @Don_Ruggero has absolutely demonstrated the Church’s position on that several times over, rather I am asking specifically about this statement you made.

Why does your faith require that doctrine not change? I don’t understand this. I’m a professor who studies the historical Jesus and early Christianity, and I can assure you that doctrine has always changed. It just has. The nature of Jesus himself was perhaps the most highly contested issue for the first several centuries of Christianity. The various Marian Doctrines all developed over centuries. Historically, the case for changing doctrine is as open and shut as the case that Mr. Ender is just wrong about the death penalty.

Maybe I’m just a weak minded man, but I don’t understand the need for a mythical unchanging faith. It reminds me a little of the 19th century Populists in the US. They sought to return to a mythical agrarian past because they feared losing out in a world rapidly embracing big business, industrialization, and an end to yeoman farming. Are Catholics who fear changing doctrine afraid the Church will turn into something that no longer backs their concept of a properly ordered society? Seriously, I’m asking because I want insight.

 

[Pug]

Are Catholics who fear changing doctrine afraid the Church will turn into something that no longer backs their concept of a properly ordered society?

Some doctrine has a huge effect on one’s life. So, say you’ve made a lot of sacrifice in your life for doctrines. Perhaps your spouse left you over a doctrine, and it hurt your children. I think such a person would want to know that they didn’t let that happen over something that only maybe might be true, and next week could change. I think such an effect could carry over to doctrines that are less impactful. (not that the death penalty is exempt for impacting lives).

I’m not the person you wrote to, though, to be clear.

 

[Ender]

Why does your faith require that doctrine not change?.. The various Marian Doctrines all developed over centuries. Historically, the case for changing doctrine is as open and shut as the case that Mr. Ender is just wrong about the death penalty.

It is one thing for a doctrine to develop, but quite another for a doctrine unchanged for two millennia to be reversed. That’s a great deal more than simple “change”.

The reversal of a doctrine as well established as the legitimacy of capital punishment would raise serious problems regarding the credibility of the magisterium. Consistency with Scripture and long-standing Catholic tradition is important for the grounding of many current teachings of the Catholic Church; for example, those regarding abortion, contraception, the permanence of marriage, and the ineligibility of women for priestly ordination. If the tradition on capital punishment had been reversed, serious questions would be raised regarding other doctrines… (Edward Feser)

Beyond that is this very real problem:

If, in fact, the previous teaching had been discarded, doubt would be cast on the current teaching as well. It too would have to be seen as reversible, and in that case, as having no firm hold on people’s assent. The new doctrine, based on a recent insight, would be in competition with a magisterial teaching that has endured for two millennia—or even more, if one wishes to count the biblical testimonies. Would not some Catholics be justified in adhering to the earlier teaching on the ground that it has more solid warrant than the new? The faithful would be confronted with the dilemma of having to dissent either from past or from present magisterial teaching.