E
Ender
Guest
Of course. Understand, however, that making that determination is a prudential judgment. It is not a doctrine. The only doctrine is the teaching that death is an (otherwise) just punishment is based on Scripture.
Emeraldlady
New member
If the doctrine holds that death is not just if it doesn’t serve the common good, it is right and proper that the Church who with Christs authority guides humans in matters of morality, is duty bound to speak when injustice is occurring. Whose moral authority can we trust more than the Church?Emeraldlady:
Of course. Understand, however, that making that determination is a prudential judgment. It is not a doctrine. The only doctrine is the teaching that death is an (otherwise) just punishment is based on Scripture.
D
Dakota111
Guest
Ender this is mere assertion.
The CCC even before correction says recourse to the death penalty may have to be excluded (ie it may be unjust, impermissable) when there are alternative ways to defend lives from the agressor.
Why would you ignore this teaching?
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
It is the task of those who have responsibility for the common good to make that determination. Just as for war, so too for capital punishment.
2309 These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
E
Ender
Guest
Punishment has four objectives…
The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (Dulles)
The primary objective is retribution, protection is a secondary objective.
2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.
Of the two criteria that make a punishment just, the first - whether it is of commensurate severity with the crime - is always true of capital punishment and murder. The second, whether the punishment is harmful to society, is a prudential judgment.
E
Ender
Guest
It is one thing to say capital punishment is ruled out because of a prudential judgment about existing conditions, and quite another to assert doctrine rules it out for being immoral. Given the church’s belief that capital punishment was supported by Scripture it seems a bit much to accept that it is now Scripture that bans it.
If it ever came down to a matter of assent being required I (we) would all be in the position of assenting to this magisterium and of dissenting from every previous magisterium. I am unwilling to accept that we are required to believe today what was a heresy to believe before.
I do not ignore it. I have very carefully addressed the issues…and then come to a different conclusion, a position I believe is justified inasmuch as prudential judgments do not require assent.
If it ever came down to a matter of assent being required I (we) would all be in the position of assenting to this magisterium and of dissenting from every previous magisterium. I am unwilling to accept that we are required to believe today what was a heresy to believe before.
G
graciew
Guest
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...rative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm
From your Bishops ( USSCB) year 2000.
There is a lot more to read . This is just a few lines
“Our society seems to prefer punishment to rehabilitation and retribution to restoration thereby indicating a failure to recognize prisoners as human beings.
In some ways, an approach to criminal justice that is inspired by a Catholic vision is a paradox. We cannot and will not tolerate behavior that threatens lives and violates the rights of others. We believe in responsibility, accountability, and legitimate punishment. Those who harm others or damage property must be held accountable for the hurt they have caused. The community has a right to establish and enforce laws to protect people and to advance the common good.
At the same time, a Catholic approach does not give up on those who violate these laws. We believe that both victims and offenders are children of God. Despite their very different claims on society, their lives and dignity should be protected and respected. We seek justice, not vengeance. We believe punishment must have clear purposes: protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law.
We believe a Catholic vision of crime and criminal justice can offer some alternatives. It recognizes that root causes and personal choices can both be factors in crime by understanding the need for responsibility on the part of the offender and an opportunity for their rehabilitation. A Catholic approach leads us to encourage models of restorative justice that seek to address crime in terms of the harm done to victims and communities, not simply as a violation of law.
Scriptural Foundations
The Old Testament provides us with a rich tradition that demonstrates both God’s justice and mercy. The Lord offered to his people Ten Commandments, very basic rules for living from which the Israelites formed their own laws in a covenant relationship with God. Punishment was required, reparations were demanded, and relationships were restored. But the Lord never abandoned his people despite their sins. And in times of trouble, victims relied on God’s love and mercy, and then on each other to find comfort and support (Is 57:18-21; Ps 94:19).
Just as God never abandons us, so too we must be in covenant with one another. We are all sinners, and our response to sin and failure should not be abandonment and despair, but rather justice, contrition, reparation, and return or reintegration of all into the community.
The New Testament builds on this tradition and extends it. Jesus demonstrated his disappointment with those who oppressed others (Mt 23) and those who defiled sacred spaces (Jn 2). At the same time, he rejected punishment for its own sake, noting that we are all sinners (Jn 8). Jesus also rejected revenge and retaliation and was ever hopeful that offenders would transform their lives and turn to be embraced by God ‘s love “
From your Bishops ( USSCB) year 2000.
There is a lot more to read . This is just a few lines
“Our society seems to prefer punishment to rehabilitation and retribution to restoration thereby indicating a failure to recognize prisoners as human beings.
In some ways, an approach to criminal justice that is inspired by a Catholic vision is a paradox. We cannot and will not tolerate behavior that threatens lives and violates the rights of others. We believe in responsibility, accountability, and legitimate punishment. Those who harm others or damage property must be held accountable for the hurt they have caused. The community has a right to establish and enforce laws to protect people and to advance the common good.
At the same time, a Catholic approach does not give up on those who violate these laws. We believe that both victims and offenders are children of God. Despite their very different claims on society, their lives and dignity should be protected and respected. We seek justice, not vengeance. We believe punishment must have clear purposes: protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law.
We believe a Catholic vision of crime and criminal justice can offer some alternatives. It recognizes that root causes and personal choices can both be factors in crime by understanding the need for responsibility on the part of the offender and an opportunity for their rehabilitation. A Catholic approach leads us to encourage models of restorative justice that seek to address crime in terms of the harm done to victims and communities, not simply as a violation of law.
Scriptural Foundations
The Old Testament provides us with a rich tradition that demonstrates both God’s justice and mercy. The Lord offered to his people Ten Commandments, very basic rules for living from which the Israelites formed their own laws in a covenant relationship with God. Punishment was required, reparations were demanded, and relationships were restored. But the Lord never abandoned his people despite their sins. And in times of trouble, victims relied on God’s love and mercy, and then on each other to find comfort and support (Is 57:18-21; Ps 94:19).
Just as God never abandons us, so too we must be in covenant with one another. We are all sinners, and our response to sin and failure should not be abandonment and despair, but rather justice, contrition, reparation, and return or reintegration of all into the community.
The New Testament builds on this tradition and extends it. Jesus demonstrated his disappointment with those who oppressed others (Mt 23) and those who defiled sacred spaces (Jn 2). At the same time, he rejected punishment for its own sake, noting that we are all sinners (Jn 8). Jesus also rejected revenge and retaliation and was ever hopeful that offenders would transform their lives and turn to be embraced by God ‘s love “
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
I didn’t say that the Church makes civil laws. I said that it is the duty and evangelical commission to speak out when there is injustice happening. The Church exists as the guardian of the faith and morals of society.Emeraldlady:
It is the task of those who have responsibility for the common good to make that determination. Just as for war, so too for capital punishment.
2309 These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
Abolition of the death penalty has been happening around the world as no longer morally acceptable. The Church has had to come out strongly in the last 20 years to defend this movement of the Spirit, against interpretations of Catholic doctrine such as yours, which work to prevent that movement of the Spirit.
Emeraldlady
New member
Capital punishment was never ‘supported by Scripture’. Capital punishment is a civil sentence. Scripture permitted execution if the good of the community warranted that redress. As Aquinas stated, it is forbidden if society is harmed by it. Aquinas is not talking about individual cases. What court has ever factored the harm to society in an individual case? That’s an absurd interpretation. Aquinas is referring to the culture of capital punishment and it’s effect on society. Society is forbidden to entertain the death penalty in law if it is harming society. It is immoral and unjust if it harms society.
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
Do you think that the rest of the world and all the Catholic faithful on the forum believe that this is what they are doing? What qualifications or superior knowledge are you referencing to come to that conclusion over and above the Magisterium of the Church with her wealth of theologians and historical work? You must surely realise that what you are arguing is nothing more than your limited opinion because ‘prudential judgements’ aren’t come to in an armchair.
Prudential judgment is the application of moral principles to a particular case in order to do good and avoid evil. It is a recognition that we live in an imperfect world, in which achieving pure goodness is not always possible, but the Christian must constantly strive to move toward a more perfect world (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1806).
Prudential judgment is not a way to rationalize a political calculation, avoid rocking the boat or justifying one’s own interest. Nor is it a pretext to ignore Church teaching. If a Catholic finds herself in conflict with the Church’s teaching on an issue, she must give serious consideration to the teaching and work to understand the conflict. It is important that we put aside any personal motives, including partisan preference or individual gain that might cloud our judgment.
“The Church fosters well-formed consciences not only by teaching moral truth but also by encouraging its members to develop the virtue of prudence, which St. Ambrose described as ‘the charioteer of the virtues.’" (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, No. 19)
E
Ender
Guest
It is no less morally acceptable now than it has ever been, given that morality does not change with the times.
“My” interpretation is quite literally nothing other than what the church taught for 2000 years.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
I disagree. If a way to treat an etopic pregnancy that allows the baby to survive is discovered the current morally acceptable treatment would become immoral.
Emeraldlady
New member
We’ve been over this earlier in the thread. Slavery, flogging, polygamy. Once moral, now immoral. This problem is very much with your power to reason without a sound understanding of intrinsic and extrinsic natures.Emeraldlady:
It is no less morally acceptable now than it has ever been, given that morality does not change with the times.
No, your interpretation does not factor in the principles of intrinsic and extrinsic moral qualities. The Church has defined those principles in order to understand how a “growing moral sensitivity” can warrant the abolition of previously endorsed practices without going outside doctrine.Ender:
“My” interpretation is quite literally nothing other than what the church taught for 2000 years.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Well obviously the church thought it was.
- The Catholic Church has always taught that legitimate governments have the right to impose the death penalty on those guilty of the most serious crimes. This teaching has been consistent for centuries — in the Scriptures, in the writings of the Church Fathers and in the teachings of the popes. (Archbishop Gomez, 2016)
- Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)
- If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles, 2002)
- It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures… (St. Bellarmine, c 1600)
I’ll say this for the last time. The determination of what harms society is a prudential judgment. It is not a moral judgment and an error in judgment is properly called a mistake, not a sin.
As for what Scripture supports, it is the morality of capital punishment in general. That it may be unwise in particular circumstances is not what it addresses.
E
Ender
Guest
I think the real question is not what others believe but what is true. It was a heresy before to deny the legitimacy of capital punishment. If we are now required to believe what we were required to deny before then apparently the heretics were right and the church was wrong.
D
Dakota111
Guest
No, only “always objectively disordered”. Just as “thou shall not directly kill” means.
It is murder that is intrinsically morally evil.
You have confused the object of a human (ie moral) act with the complete moral act itself.
Yes direct killing has always been wrong.
Yet surely you accept lethal self defence is ok if conditions are met.
Why do you then insist all State Killings in the past must have been unjust? Pope Francis is fairly clearly saying that if the violence of CP is likewise proportionate for defence of the State then it was and is moral. Even the last 3 Popes can be seen to say that.
By saying immoral you are suggesting both the Church and State knew they were wrong and killed in malice anyways. That is emotive rhetoric on your part not a logical, cool assessment of the past.
Yes, Churchmen make mistakes such as tolerating the burning of witches, slavery, allowing and sanctioning torture, wrongly condemning scientists and abusing children.
Hopefully we learn from our mistakes and correct them as we learn better. Which the last 4 Popes are doing.
I think a better counter argument than this is needed.
Have another go.
Last edited:
D
Dakota111
Guest
Thats quite the leap and hardly the only meaning of the text, nor its face value one.
Punishment means more than penalty…even Dulles agrees to that…yet you treat the words in each quote as exactly the same.
Nor is “primary scope” the same as primary purpose.
Nor does implied “secondary purpose” (if that was even meant) of State defence make a sensible interpretation of the CCC if you see that as meaning this is not essential for a just punishment as the CCC later makes quite clear.
Hence if your above interpretation of the CCC is correct then you must hold the CCC is intrinsically contradictory re State Killings. So why quote part of the CCC that you like for your own defence? That is not intellectually honest. If other CCC parts are wrong you must accept that what you CCC quote in your own support is contaminated also and with uncertain authority.
That only leaves you with Cardinal Dulles…not that I think you have interpretted him correctly either.
Regardless, why would a loyal son of the Church insist his interpretation of C Dulles’s view of the matter trumps the contrary clear view of the last four Cardinals with the Office of Peter? That would suggest your interpretation of Dulles is wrong or Dulles is wrong. Why would you prefer the Popes to be wrong instead?
I am not trying to be impolite but the only answer I can come up with is hubris or an unwillingness to reassess ones long cherished theological worldview.
Last edited:
D
Dakota111
Guest
I think you misunderstand.
The judgement being made in the CCC is that the “scope of the penalty” normally demanded of a murderer is to be narrowed from death to something less violent if at all possible if the State can still be protected … and under pain of injustice.
This is all about a judgement at the level of principle. That is not called a prudential judgement. Its a doctrinal teaching. That is the Popes privilege.
Yes, identifying whether actual State Killings in the US or Zambia meet these principles (and hence is unjust) is a prudential judgement.
E
Ender
Guest
If an execution, by denying the dignity of the person, is always objectively disordered" why is it not always immoral? How can something that is always disordered not be immoral? Are you implying that there are times when denying someone’s dignity is acceptable?
No, it hasn’t. Even today direct killing in a just war is acceptable, and before last year direct killing (whatever that term means) was also specifically allowed as punishment.
If capital punishment is immoral because it is an affront to man’s dignity then it is immoral without exception, and defense of the state is immaterial, but if it is justifiable on prudential grounds when deemed necessary then nothing has changed. His objection, like those of the popes immediately preceding him, is prudential.
If capital punishment is immoral today it must have been immoral in the past as morality does not change, but if it is immoral then everyone who supported a state’s right to use it was mistaken, which means virtually everyone in the church (Fathers, Doctors, popes, magisteriums, councils…) simply failed to understand a significant moral question, and not only failed to understand it but also completely misunderstood Scripture.
R
Richca
Guest
I believe your referencing here what the CCC said, probably #2267, before the recent change of a couple of months ago. This text did not bind authorities under pain of injustice if they didn’t follow precisely what is said in the text such as “If non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means” nor even the catholic faithful. The catechism inserted here what was essentially St John Paul II’s opinion and prudential judgement on the matter. Pope Benedict XVI clarified when he was prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith under St John Paul in a letter he sent to Cardinal McCarrick and the US bishops in 2004 on the worthiness to receive communion the following:
- Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Last edited: