Capital punishment is justified

[Ender]

Cardinal Dulles is not commenting on the actions of the Holy Father, being deceased and all, and this being the Twenty-first Century, not the Nineteenth.

Well, yes, but my response was meant to support the comment that: “…it has always been the enemies of the Church that have sought to abolish the death penalty” by citing a great theologian who said that enemies of the church have sought to abolish the death penalty. That hardly suggests that everyone who opposes capital punishment is therefore an enemy of the church.

I might point to the historical context of Jesus being on the record as opposing one case of capital punishment, supporting zero, and being a victim of a third.

If you’re going to argue that Jesus’ actions in the case of the woman caught in adultery is an example of his opposition to capital punishment you would also have to recognize that it would mean opposition to all punishment given that the woman walked away scot-free. In fact there is no justification for using this incident as showing Jesus’ position on the matter. Nor has the church done so.

As for him opposing it, this seems a bit of a stretch given the several parables he used where sinners were killed for their sins. And his own words:

For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ (Mk 7:10)

We would also have to believe that St. Paul himself failed to understand Jesus properly when he said:

Although they know the just decree of God that all who practice such things deserve death, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Rm 1:29)

It is easy to claim that Jesus opposed capital punishment, but it is not so easy to support that claim.

 

[Mboo]

we are all students, people here do not speak of their own authority. In elementary school I was taught that 1 + 1 = 2.
If later at the university a math teacher tells me that 1 + 1 = 5 so long as he does not prove to me clearly why I would say he is wrong! It is a problem of logic.

In the same way, the difficulties raised by the teachings of Francis are logical and not depending on our own knowledge.

Sin is above all a fault against reason. If a pope or angel says something that is perceived as contrary to reason, as long as there is no official clarification, we should not accept this teaching as we perceive it.

 

[cathapolo]

No, you are mistaken here. The Pope is not above the deposit of the faith.
There is a long standing teaching of the Church in regards the death penalty etc. The Pope is not above them. The papacy is about the personality of the Pontiff it is about discharging a sacred office in accord with it’s purpose, namely to uphold the deposit of the faith.

 

[pnewton]

Let’s make it clear. All of us, including the Pope are students when it comes to the teachings of the Church. The Pope is not above the deposit of the faith.

I did not say he was, but I would point out that the same holds true for Cardinal Avery Dulles. Clinging to one theologian who just happens to be one that agrees with you is not the actions of a student. The Student would take the teaching of the Church and spend time trying to understand that teaching, not just spend time refuting it.

I made no statements are regards to infallibility. If you did not understand that, then theology is may not be your forte. Likewise, if you think I said the Pope is above the deposit of faith. I am referring to Church teaching. What Pope Francis has written, the doctrinal part, is in perfect line with both St. John Paul and Pope Benedict. Yes, I understand he has applied the situation of today to call it inadmissible. But the idea of capital punishment as not being necessary for retributive justice, was already established doctrine, Cardinal Dulles notwithstanding. (FYI - Cardinal Dulles does not equal “the deposit of faith”) Theologians are allowed greater latitude, but they still do not speak as Pope, nor as saints, nor as Doctors of the Church.

 

[pnewton]

It is easy to claim that Jesus opposed capital punishment, but it is not so easy to support that claim.

I was very specific in my statement, and despite your response, what I said was simple and factual. Scripture does not contain everything, but the record of Jesus in the Bible contains everything we know of what he said and did.

 

[pnewton]

In the same way, the difficulties raised by the teachings of Francis are logical and not depending on our own knowledge.

I totally get that, though to make this like math is a stretch. Nothing the Pope says is a contradiction of Church teaching. (I almost said direct contradiction, but realized that is redundant). I am sure with all the brain power here, that much is clear. Right?

Likewise, if the next pope changes this teaching back, he would not be contradicting Pope Francis.

 

[cathapolo]

On the contrary Jesus did support Capital Punishment.

Even in his debate with the Pharisees Our Lord cites with approval the apparent the commandment in this regard: “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death…”

When Pilate tells Our Lord that he has power to take away His life, Our Lord points out that his power comes to Him from God. What is more is that Our Lord commends the good thief who is on the cross next to him who acknowledge that he has received the just deed for the crimes that he has committed.

 

[Mboo]

Nothing the Pope says is a contradiction of Church teaching

Yes Yes. If we go back to the previous math example, what you’re saying is a bit like someone saying “yes, the teacher said 1 + 1 = 5, but that’s not at odds with what you’ve been taught since”
We have not lost the sense of reason yet! even if an angel in person tells me that, I would say that it is illogical.

 

[cathapolo]

I don’t need Cardinal Dulles to confirm what the Church herself has always taught in this regard.
What is interesting is that you need to do back flips to try to justify everything the Pope says in order to deny that it goes against what the Church has always taught in this regard.

“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations," Bishop Melchior Cano O.P., a theologian of the Council of Trent.

The Papacy is something sacred, the novel view you present to it undermines its foundations. We need not be afraid to speak the truth even to or about the Roman Pontiff. True love and Charity is found in truth and honesty not in lies and flattery.

 

[Mboo]

CCC quote:

1849 Sin is a fault against reason, truth, right conscience

 

[cathapolo]

Pope Pius XII when he commenting on the words of St. Paul to the Romans (13:4: "For [the prince] is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.’) affirmed that “the passage of St. Paul was of permanent and universal value, because it refers to the essential foundation of penal authority and to its inherent purpose” - on February 5, 1955, ( Romano Amerio , Iota Unum , p. 432).

Note the words of Pope Pius XII, “Permanent and universal value”. - For all time. Including, today. . .

 

[pnewton]

I don’t need Cardinal Dulles to confirm what the Church herself has always taught in this regard.
What is interesting is that you need to do back flips to try to justify everything the Pope says in order to deny that it goes against what the Church has always taught in this regard.

I do not call language skills “back flips.” My novel view? From your post above, in which you mentioned infallibility, I would say you have no concept of my view.

 

[pnewton]

On the contrary Jesus did support Capital Punishment.

Even in his debate with the Pharisees Our Lord cites with approval the apparent the commandment in this regard: “Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? For God said: Honour thy father and mother: And: He that shall curse father or mother, let him die the death…”

Mark wrote:

For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother, and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

Matthew wrote:

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6 they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

8 “‘These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain;
their teachings are merely human rules

( Romano Amerio , Iota Unum , p. 432).

I am sure Romano Amerio is a theologian. Of course anything St. Paul wrote is of universal value. What I cannot find is this quote attributed to anyone except Romano Amerio, who, by the way, was also a critic of Vatican II. Okay, that is all well and good, but it does show a little bit of “kicking against the goads” as is it were that I am reading a quote of a quote of a quote, whose context is elusive.

That is why I posted the whole of the passages above. Context : it matters as much as grammar.

 

[pnewton]

If we go back to the previous math example, what you’re saying is a bit like someone saying “yes, the teacher said 1 + 1 = 5, but that’s not at odds with what you’ve been taught since”

This is begging the question. It assumes the contradiction to prove the contradiction.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - I am wondering if I am the only one here who has actually reversed their stance on this matter, though I did it through the teaching of St. John Paul. I may be the only one that has actually know three people who have been executed, glad to seem them get what they deserved.

 

[Ender]

I was very specific in my statement, and despite your response, what I said was simple and factual. Scripture does not contain everything, but the record of Jesus in the Bible contains everything we know of what he said and did.

What you said was simple, but it was not factual. There is nothing in the Gospels that directly supports the claim that Jesus opposed capital punishment.

But the idea of capital punishment as not being necessary for retributive justice, was already established doctrine

This point has not even been addressed, let alone resolved as doctrine.

 

[Ender]

Pope Pius XII when he commenting on the words of St. Paul to the Romans (13:4: "For [the prince] is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.’) affirmed that “the passage of St. Paul was of permanent and universal value, because it refers to the essential foundation of penal authority and to its inherent purpose” - on February 5, 1955, ( Romano Amerio , Iota Unum , p. 432).

In citing this passage in Romans, Pius XII also said:

Nor does the above citation from Paul’s letter to the Romans legitimate capital punishment, but only upholds the authority of civil government and its power of coercion in general.

This passage refers to the source of legitimacy for governments; it is what gives them authority to punish in general, but of itself does not specifically legitimize capital punishment. The church has generally taken Gn 9:5-6 to be the source of that right.

(CCC 2260) The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.

 

[otrrl]

As catholics reckon the ten commandments, the fifth commandment says thou shalt not murder. People say “kill” but the real word there is murder.

There are a lot of wars around the world and there’s a lot of killing. Is the Pope saying that the death of Osama bin Laden was not a moral action? It was what it was, an act of war against a combatant.

Do the police have the right to shoot somebody who is killing people, like in a high school ambush?

There cannot be an absolute rule against putting a criminal or combatant to death. And, by the way, the Pope changed teaching that the day before was also accepted as the deposit of faith. So, it was OK the day before, but not OK the next day. That’s VERY strange. What’s next?

 

[pnewton]

Do the police have the right to shoot somebody who is killing people, like in a high school ambush?

Nothing in the new catechism section would affect legitimate self-defense, defense of another, or just war doctrine.

 

[pnewton]

Mark wrote:

Matthew wrote:

In quoting this, I was only giving context. I would like to add though that nothing I posted should reflect on everything Jesus did, as much is not recorded. In fact, we can know that Jesus would most definitely allow for the death penalty under some circumstances, because he did, in the Mosaic Law. Jesus cannot ever be separated from the Father without committing heresy.

The question for the Catholic Church is one of what does the doctrine that we know permit us to do today. This is why we have more than either Scripture, or tradition. We have a living authority alive today leading the Church.