Capital Punishment...

[vz71]

This is flatly incorrect; this section of the Catechism is neither dogma nor doctrine. Your position is based on your belief that if it is in the Catechism it must be dogma/doctrine; mine is based on the numerous comments that have been made about this specific section by those who have a better understanding of this point.

So what part of the CCC do you consider optional?

It is clear that there are raw feelings on the topic, my apologies for stepping on toes here, but…
You lay claim to citing others in your view and yet the citation itself makes no mention whatsoever of your particular view. For instance:
You lay claim that the CCC is self contradictory. You cite for backing canon lawyer R. Michael Dunnigan and quote him as "*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the **Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has a right to impose the death penalty, the **Catechism declares that the actual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically nonexistent.” Moreover, the *Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching."

I have read the entirety of this several times and have yet to see where it is stated that the CCC is self contradictory. Nor do I find the right given to anyone to toss this part of the paragraph out in favor of some personal interpretation.

And more to the point, I repeat the paragraph because it is not an option for Catholics.
I do not care what your personal opinion is on the paragraph, it is there, and has the full authority and weight of the church behind it.
You have no choice, Rome has spoken.

 

[o_mlly]

Luke 16:19-31

Your citation is our Lord’s parable – a teaching story admonishing us to listen and obey God’s prophets this side of our Judgment Day. The better reference on the population of hell is 1 Tim 2:4 cited in the CCC #74:
“God ‘desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’…”

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[o_mlly]

So all the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth that Jesus Himself would be there was what? A sould effects recording?

A bit anecdotal, don’t you think? If you can cite any Magisterial document which states one soul is in hell, I will yield the point.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[pnewton]

Your citation is our Lord’s parable – a teaching story admonishing us to listen and obey God’s prophets this side of our Judgment Day. The better reference on the population of hell is 1 Tim 2:4 cited in the CCC #74:
“God ‘desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth’…”

Peace,
O’Malley

It is better yet not to ignore one passage for another. In the context of the verse given.

who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human, 6 who gave himself as ransom for all. This was the testimony at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed preacher and apostle (I am speaking the truth, I am not lying), teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

Paul was explaining his ministry to the Gentiles. Because of God’s desire for the salvation of all, Paul was appointed to the Gentiles. In Paul’s writings especially, one must always account for the prepositions. They are key to his writing style.

The Catechism also says:

682 When he comes at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, the glorious Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace.

 

[pnewton]

A bit anecdotal, don’t you think? If you can cite any Magisterial document which states one soul is in hell, I will yield the point.

Peace,
O’Malley

With Jesus being the one giving the anecdote, I do not accept the burden of proof. On the contrary, it would be up to the one wanting to believe Jesus was lying to show why.

Besides, having dealt with others here, I recognize futility when I see it and do not care to convince you. I do not believe that is a possibility. You seem quite set in your belief. If the very words of the Son of God does not convince you, nothing will.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matt. 7:13–14).

For others that are interested:
catholic.com/library/Hell_There_Is.asp

This includes the teaching of the early Fathers on the subject.

 

[BiologyBrain]

A bit anecdotal, don’t you think? If you can cite any Magisterial document which states one soul is in hell, I will yield the point.

Peace,
O’Malley

Actually, doesn’t the existance of Hell point logically to the fact that there would be souls in it?

Also, doesn’t the devil have a soul & isn’t he the proprietor of Hell along w/ his fallen angels? That might not be Magesterial documentation, but I’ll take Bible History as documentation any day!

Also, doesn’t Jesus himself tell us that few will enter the kingdom of heaven? If they’re not in heaven, aren’t they probably not even in purgatory (since they aren’t going to enter the kingdom of heaven). Therefore, I’d presume Jesus was telling us they will be in hell.

Jesus also tells a parable about the rich man & beggar that died at the same time. The rich man was in Gehenna (spelling?) and begged God to send the beggar to his brothers so they wouldn’t meet the same fate.

Jesus also references Gehenna (spelling) in several other stories.

Also, here’s from the CCC

633
Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

Good enough for me - how about you?

 

[BiologyBrain]

No, you are quite wrong. Faith is a gratuitous gift from God which man can never “work for” or merit. We, who have received the gift of faith, are to be instruments of the Holy Spirit in speaking the good news that others might hear. See Romans 10:17. While God does all the heavy lifting, we have a role in His salvation plan for humanity.

Not everyone **accepts **the gift of Faith from God. Sorry - even Jesus knew & taught that fact. We have to expend some effort to have our Faith. Otherwise, its empty words & promises. God wants everyone to be with him, but since humans have free will, they are free to **reject **him as well. If people are more than willing to reject God, don’t you also think they’ll reject rehabilitation? I do. Sorry if you disagree. There’s an old saying “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink” that seems very appropriate here to me… You can give people every opportunity, but you can’t make them take the right/good one.

Really? You think that publishing your negative judgment about others whom you’ve never met based on hearsay evidence is a sufficient foundation to avoid being labeled “rash”?
CCC #2477 “Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor; …”

I don’t feel that I made a judgement. I merely stated what I knew & what I believe. Its my opinion that not everyone can be rehabilitated. I think there are actually even statistics (if I wanted to look) that indicate that rehabilitation does not always work. Its not a rash judgement - its my acceptance of the facts as I know them. Sorry you seem to disagree.

You said “many.”

What does “many” mean – more than a few? On what basis do you make such a claim? You’ve already admitted you have no personal experience.

Many is a non-specific term that generally means some. I don’t have to have personal experience w/ inmates to know that in my work we receive many cases from previously convicted, rehabilitated, & released criminals. My work shows me this. Sorry you seem to disagree.

There you go again. Take me up on my challenge. Become a prison minister and find out first hand rather than second hand the real disposition of inmates.

Not everyone is called to be a prison minister or a minister of anything. Sorry - that’s fact - early Christians & Jesus recognized this too. We all have our talents & mine does not deal well with large groups of people face-to-face. Sorry you seem to disagree. I am awestruck by the progress that some prison ministers are able to acheive. However, even they don’t claim 100% rehabilitation (at least not the ones that came to my parish to ask for donations). Recividivism (spelling?) was decreased by about 80% in jails (not prisons) w/ the prison ministry. However, that still leaves 20% that refused to accept help and/or live the new non-criminal way of life. I am thankful that God has given some people the gifts necessary to bring about this type of change. However, I accept that I’m not one of those people. I don’t feel like I need to try to be something I’m not either. I know the gifts God gave me & I willingly use them to the best of my ability for God’s greater work. It may not seem like much to someone accomplishing great works of mercy, rehabilitation, etc, but I’m doing my small part as best I know how. I believe that’s what God calls many of us to do.

I still stand by my statement that instead of merely being cooped up in prisons, inmates should be on chain gangs working for their room, board, health care, etc. They should have access to rehabilitation, but if they’re not willing to work w/ a counsellor, they should not be labeled as ‘rehabilitated’ and released back out into society. I don’t think executions should be the norm by any means. However, I do not see the death penalty (as a sentence) as an option that should be taken off the table entirely. I don’t think the Church teaches that either.

We’re free to disagree b/c there is ambiguity in the Church’s teaching allowing for differing opinions.

 

[o_mlly]

It is doctrine, not dogma. There is a critical difference. …

There is a difference but not the critical difference you suggest. The authority of the Catechism is in its footnotes.

CCC #892 “Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a ‘definitive manner,’ they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful 'are to adhere to it with religious assent’422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.”

422 LG 25. (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH)
“…In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

Please note that this document is dogmatic.

The pope has several modes of teaching without necessarily pronouncing an infallible decision. The modes the pope chooses changes the laity’s requirement for adherence. Vatican documents include, in descending order of formal authority: apostolic constitutions, encyclical letters, encyclical epistles, apostolic exhortations, apostolic letters, letters and messages. Because apostolic exhortations do not define the development of doctrine, they are lower in formal authority than encyclical letters, which are directed to the whole Church and which may define development of doctrine.

As to CCC #2267, the source of its authority is an Encyclical Letter, the second highest form of papal teachinh authority:
Evangelium Vitae
Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
March 25, 1995
Paragraph 56

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[vz71]

Actually, doesn’t the existance of Hell point logically to the fact that there would be souls in it?

No, Hell was created for the devil and those angels that chose to follow him.

But besides that, the logic does not flow.
I have a cereal box on my kitchen table. Has the name of the cereal, and even has a picture of someone enjoying the cereal on it. The box is empty.

Probably a very clunky analogy, but I believe the idea is there.
A container does not logically lead to something being contained in it.

 

[BiologyBrain]

No, Hell was created for the devil and those angels that chose to follow him.

But besides that, the logic does not flow.
I have a cereal box on my kitchen table. Has the name of the cereal, and even has a picture of someone enjoying the cereal on it. The box is empty.

Probably a very clunky analogy, but I believe the idea is there.
A container does not logically lead to something being contained in it.

I accept your logical argument/analogy, but what about the presumption that the only reason God created Hell was to house the devil & his angels. Don’t they have souls? God wouldn’t have created Hell to be empty would He? Actually, since Hell isn’t a place, but a state of the soul & body after death, was it created at all?

I’d better go b/c I’m getting way too philosophical! :banghead:

 

[vz71]

I accept your logical argument/analogy, but what about the presumption that the only reason God created Hell was to house the devil & his angels. Don’t they have souls? God wouldn’t have created Hell to be empty would He? Actually, since Hell isn’t a place, but a state of the soul & body after death, was it created at all?

I’d better go b/c I’m getting way too philosophical! :banghead:

They are pure spirit. They do not have physical bodies.
And I suppose it would depend on what exactly you are calling a soul.
Are you asking if there are human souls in hell?

 

[Ender]

So what part of the CCC do you consider optional?

It has been my position all along that section 2267 is neither dogma nor doctrine but rather the prudential opinion of JPII and that, because it is prudential, even though it is the opinion of a pope it does not carry with it the obligation of obedience.

You lay claim to citing others in your view and yet the citation itself makes no mention whatsoever of your particular view. For instance: You lay claim that the CCC is self contradictory. You cite for backing canon lawyer R. Michael Dunnigan

I have made two claims, one is that 2267 is prudential and the other that the Catechism is self contradictory. The quote from Dunnigan supports my first claim.

I have read the entirety of this several times and have yet to see where it is stated that the CCC is self contradictory.

True, it does not. It does state that the teaching is ambiguous and contains prudential opinion.

Nor do I find the right given to anyone to toss this part of the paragraph out in favor of some personal interpretation.

Separate these two questions: Is 2267 correct? and Is 2267 prudential? This particular point is not about whether what 2267 says is or is not correct; it is about whether what 2267 says is or is not prudential.

I repeat the paragraph because it is not an option for Catholics.

As I repeat my observation that if it is prudential then it is not binding. Here is Karl Keating’s response to Dunnigan’s article:

To me it demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment.* Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience.***

Ender

 

[Ender]

"pnewton:

It is doctrine, not dogma. There is a critical difference. …

There is a difference but not the critical difference you suggest.

I agree that pnewton’s distinction between doctrine and dogma doesn’t really change the fact that both of them require our assent. He is, however, correct in asserting that he is justified in doubting that the criteria presented in 2267 for the application of the death penalty have been met, and this is on the basis of a statement from our current pope.

In a 2004 letter to Cardinal McCarrick, then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”

This may be ambiguous on my point that the criteria themselves may legitimately be doubted but there is no doubt at all that Catholics are justified in believing that the criteria have not been met … which is pnewton’s position.

Ender

 

[vz71]

It has been my position all along that section 2267 is neither dogma nor doctrine but rather the prudential opinion of JPII and that, because it is prudential, even though it is the opinion of a pope it does not carry with it the obligation of obedience.

I believe I can understand (but not agree) with your position at least.
You are looking at the last sentence contained within the paragraph as an opinion (it is) and apparently discount the entire paragraph for this.

I believe this places you in the position of showing why 2267 is entirely opinion.
After all, there are several concrete items laid out in the paragraph. Editorial at the end does not negate these items.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually, doesn’t the existance of Hell point logically to the fact that there would be souls in it? ?

No, it doesn’t necessarily follow that because a place exists that it must also be populated.

Also, doesn’t the devil have a soul & isn’t he the proprietor of Hell along w/ his fallen angels? That might not be Magesterial documentation, but I’ll take Bible History as documentation any day! ?

We are discussing God’s plan for the salvation of mankind – specifically inmates, not demons.

Also, doesn’t Jesus himself tell us that few will enter the kingdom of heaven? If they’re not in heaven, aren’t they probably not even in purgatory (since they aren’t going to enter the kingdom of heaven). Therefore, I’d presume Jesus was telling us they will be in hell.

Your presumption is one our Catholic Church has never taught. Pope John Paul II writes in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, “Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, ‘It would be better for that man if he had never been born’ (Mt 26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.”

Jesus also tells a parable about the rich man & beggar that died at the same time. The rich man was in Gehenna (spelling?) and begged God to send the beggar to his brothers so they wouldn’t meet the same fate./FONT]

I addressed this misinterpretation already in another post.

Jesus also references Gehenna (spelling) in several other stories.

Also, here’s from the CCC
633
Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

Good enough for me - how about you?

#633 is the truth for me but I don’t think you properly understand the teaching; it does not help your argument. Once again, from John Paul the Great:

“It should also be mentioned straight-away that the word “hell” does not mean the hell of eternal damnation, but the abode of the dead which is sheol in Hebrew and hades in Greek (cf. Acts 2:311.”
He Descended Into Hell
by Pope John Paul II
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5549

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[BiologyBrain]

We are discussing God’s plan for the salvation of mankind – specifically inmates, not demons.

You merely asked for reference that there were souls (of any type - since you didn’t specify) in Hell. Satan & his fallen angels have souls, although they do not have bodies. Therefore, there are souls in Hell.

#633 is the truth for me but I don’t think you properly understand the teaching; it does not help your argument. Once again, from John Paul the Great:

“It should also be mentioned straight-away that the word “hell” does not mean the hell of eternal damnation, but the abode of the dead which is sheol in Hebrew and hades in Greek (cf. Acts 2:311.”
He Descended Into Hell
by Pope John Paul II
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5549

I don’t understand you’re insistence that the hell spoken of in the Catechism is unpopulated when the catechism states in 633 "Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell”—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell.“482 **Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.**483”

The bolded sections seem to clearly indicate that there are/were souls in hell prior to Jesus descending there. The latter bolded section seems to indicate that even though Jesus went down to share the Good News w/ those already dead, not all were receptive and/or saved. Therefore, the logical conclusion IMO, is that there were and still are souls in hell.

Also, does it really matter whether there are human souls in hell or not? We, as Christians & Catholics, are called not to judge one another in this manner. We cannot judge what is in another person’s heart (which is different than judging their actions as good/bad) - especially at the moment of their death. As humans we cannot know what happens in the next life to one another until we die and are granted that vision by God.

 

[pnewton]

422 LG 25. (DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH)
“…In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”

Please note that this document is dogmatic.

Yes, but it does not make everything the Pope utters dogmatic. I suggest we also consider the Catechism’s teaching on conscience. One can have disagreement of conscience with doctrine, as long as all the guidelines are made. However, dogma must be acceptes simply because it is dogma.

In any case, the Church’s teaching (doctrine) still allows for the death penalty and the United States is mentioned in Church doctrine.

 

[Ender]

I believe this places you in the position of showing why 2267 is entirely opinion. After all, there are several concrete items laid out in the paragraph. Editorial at the end does not negate these items.

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

This statement, starting at the bold text, is not supported by what we know of the traditional teaching of the Church. What the Church always taught was that a state has the right to execute criminals. Period. There was never a caveat about its use being dependent on whether it was or was not necessary to defend the public; this is where the problem begins.

*"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority **should *limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

This is clearly an opinion; it is even phrased as what the state should do rather than what it *must *do. It is a recommendation, not a command. Compare that construction with this statement from 2273: *“The inalienable rights of the person **must **be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.” *

"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

This is the section that pnewton has been disputing in claiming (rightly I think) that in fact the state does not have the means to effectively control all inmates; I don’t think anyone can argue that this sentence is not an opinion.

One can cite the opinions of popes, councils, doctors of the Church, and other Catechisms prior to 1995 without finding anything to support the contentions of 2267. As I have previously observed, there are no references in either 2267 or Evangelium Vitae to earlier Church documents that provide any basis for this position.

Ender

 

[BiologyBrain]

I was browsing EWTN on another matter and came across a few interesting tid-bits on capital punishment/death penalty…

EWTN Capital Punishment FAQ Click on Moral Theology & then the link for Capital Punishment

From Archbishop Chaput:

Catholic teaching on the death penalty is best understood by viewing it through two lenses: what it is, and what it is not. The Church’s critique of capital punishment is not an evasion of justice. Victims and their survivors have a right to redress, and the state has a right to enforce that redress and impose grave punishment for grave crimes.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances.

It is not an idolatry of individual rights — in this case, the rights of the murderer. The right to life of the convicted murderer must be balanced against society’s right to justice and security. Finally, it is not a false equation of related but distinct issues. Catholic teaching on euthanasia, the death penalty, war, genocide and abortion are rooted in the same concern for the sanctity of the human person. These are different issues that do not all have the same gravity or moral content.

What Catholic teaching on the death penalty does involve is this: a call to set aside unnecessary violence, including violence by the state, in the name of human dignity and the building of a culture of life.

(Archbishop Charles Chaput, “Justice, Mercy and Capital Punishment, Arlington Catholic Herald, 10/13/05)

From Fr. Torraco:

It is unfortunate that in recent times the Church’s teaching on capital punishment has been presented so unclearly, both by members of the Church as well as of the media and other sectors of society. The Church’s teaching on this matter is governed primarily by the natural law, and secondly by the principle of double effect. The Church’s teaching on this matter remains fundamentally the same. The Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor, by virtue of the principle of double effect, can resort to the death penalty. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” The important point here is that the Pope has not, as he cannot, change the constant and fundamental teaching of the Church on this matter, based as it is on the natural law, namely that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend citizens against the aggressor. What the Pope IS saying is that, in modern society, the modern penal system, along with an intense anti-life culture, makes resorting to the death penalty disproportionate to the threatening aggression. (According to the 4th criterion of the principle of double effect, the unintended evil effect of the act of self defense has to be proportionate to the intended good effect of that act.) Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. It would, by the standards of the natural law and the principle of double effect, be morally irresponsible to rule out all such possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately. For these reasons, the Church cannot possibly embrace EITHER a totally PRO-capital punishment teaching OR a totally ANTI-capital punishment teaching.

From Fr. Levis:

John Paul 2 advised against it in general, especially in cultures like the American with extensive punishment facilities. But he did not condemn capital punishment.

 

[Ender]

Fr. Torraco:

The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society.

I disagree with this point: the death penalty was traditionally not understood as an act of societal self-defense. The primary objective of all punishment is not defense but justice and it is in this light that executions must be weighed. The defense of society - along with deterrence and rehabilitation - are all legitimate objectives of punishment but all three of them are secondary objectives. The primary objective (as defined in 2266) is “to redress the disorder caused by the offense”. It is retribution (justice) that must first be accomodated.

BB: Thanks for the citation to the comments of Archbishop Chaput on this topic. I will surely have to study them.

Ender