Capital Punishment...

[pnewton]

I disagree with this point: the death penalty was traditionally not understood as an act of societal self-defense.

You are correct that the traditional role of civil punishment has always been for the temporal execution of justice. However, I think what the what was being presented was the Church’s current focus, which is primarily protection of society. This is why I have tried to focus most of my thinking on this latter question.

AB Chuput not withstanding, I think the culture of death argument is weak if one is using a death penalty exclusively for murder. It is precicely because life is of such great value that so great a penalty is exacted. Any gain to our value of life that we have from disallowing a death penalty is lost by softening the penalty on murder.

If the death penalty gives us a lesser value of life, why is it that the Party of abortion is also the party most opposed to the death penalty, and visa versa. The data seems to refute this argument.

 

[o_mlly]

2267 *…

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*

Nor need there be any references to prior councils or other Church documents for JP II was as inspired by the Holy Spirit as all his predecessors. He is within his remit to further develop any and all doctrine on faith and morals. The Word of God will never be exhaustively expressed in human terms this side of the Parousia.

What would be scandalous is if you could find a contradictory papal document reversing the truth of JP II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Ender]

Nor need there be any references to prior councils or other Church documents for JP II was as inspired by the Holy Spirit as all his predecessors. He is within his remit to further develop any and all doctrine on faith and morals.

2267 does not so much represent a development of previous doctrine as an abandonment of it. The sole objective of punishment it applies to the use of the death penalty is the protection of society yet just a sentence or two earlier the Catechism identified the primary objective of punishment as justice. I will repeat yet again that this section represents JPII’s opinion and as such receives no protection from the Holy Spirit as to its accuracy.

What would be scandalous is if you could find a contradictory papal document reversing the truth of JP II’s encyclical Evangelium Vitae.

You mean like the Catechism of the Council of Trent? Actually, even though it rather completely contradicts what JPII said, there is no scandal involved because JPII’s comments are opinion.

I had hoped that perhaps this discussion of capital punishment would get beyond merely repeating “JPII said … JPII said …” and go deeper into the concepts of punishment, mercy, justice, etc but it appears that no one is really interesting in going beyond 2267. Although I am disappointed at this I am not surprised because once one moves on to these other subjects the more one realizes that 2267 is an island disconnected from everything else the Church teaches.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Nor need there be any references to prior councils or other Church documents for JP II was as inspired by the Holy Spirit as all his predecessors. He is within his remit to further develop any and all doctrine on faith and morals.

And hs limitations remain the same. A pope’s charism does not extend to science, sports or news. His authority is defined within the Church, but in temporal matters, opinion is still opinion. The Church can establish the principles on matters such as capital punishment and the death penalty. It does not have authority over the application. That is always a matter of the prudential judgment of those with that authority. The responsibility of the Catholic is to understand these principles and apply them in their areas of authority, even if it is just one vote. We are totally free to disagree with anyone in a judgment, such as whether criminals can be safely incarcerated.

I am always open to evidence contrary to my opinion and have searched diligently for it. I have never even seen an attempt to explain this inexplicable axiom.

 

[vz71]

2267 does not so much represent a development of previous doctrine as an abandonment of it.

How quickly we moved from laying claim that it represents a departure from the traditional view of the death penalty to an abandonment of doctrine.

If you can find some church document that carries weight of doctrine that directly contradicts 2267, please cite it and quote it.

From where I am sitting, it appears that you are willing to give your interpretation of historic church documents higher authority then the pope.

 

[vz71]

I will repeat yet again that this section represents JPII’s opinion and as such receives no protection from the Holy Spirit as to its accuracy.

Just so we can all be certain we are looking at the same things here.
Please list the sentences contained in 2267 and specify which you believe are opinion and which are binding teaching.

 

[NCSue]

The statement in the Catechism and made by John Paul II assumes a fact never supported by any evidence.

The Church’s position on a given topic isn’t of necessity based on “evidence”. Moral positions may not make “sense” if you required some sort of documentation to support their validity. You can’t prove using scientific evidence that the Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Our Lord, but you can’t convince me otherwise. You can’t prove that it is sinful to be envious, or to disrespect one’s parents, but we believe it to be true.

What is ethical / moral / right doesn’t necessarily “make sense” and can’t always be supported or proven by evidence. But the lack of “evidence” doesn’t prove that these ethical / moral / right “truths” are false.

 

[LumenGent]

Keep in mind that if something is taught by the Magesterium universally it can’t be reverted or refuted by the Magesterium at the same time, that would be a contradiction in terms.

 

[GraceDK]

In my first post here can I share some thoughts that I posted about in more detail at my blog on the subject of capital punishment?

---

Roman Catholic teaching notes that traditionally capital punishment was not absolutely excluded (an understatement indeed…), but that today, so long as non-lethal means can defend against the aggressor and protect the safety of other persons, then those non-lethal means are to be chosen. This is more in keeping with the common good and conforms more to the dignity of the human person (CCC, 2267). John Paul II notes that the cases in which the execution of an offender is absolutely necessary “are very rare, if not practically non-existent (Evangelium vitae, 56).” In a country like the United States, to the Roman Catholic Church, there isn’t a person being executed that needs to be.

---

Do you agree that this accurately represents the Church’s thoughts on the matter?

I certainly invite your participation at my blog discussion on the subject as well, where the issue is spoken of in more detail (mrwhitaker.wordpress.com/).

Whitaker

I agree with the Church and am happy to… Capital punishment seems barbarian. Actually I even think that Christianity would look better in the world if we could say that all countries that are rooted in Christian democratic thinking distanced themselves from this exaggerated gesture. America stands out from other western countries in this practice. Again… I understand if Old Israel, while walking through the desert, were forced to kill very criminal people (eg. by stoning, because deserts don’t leave much to the imagination) because they were walking for 40 years and hardly had prisons. But in a modern society it should not be used.
I even think the American life sentences are sometimes odd… like giving someone 100 years in prison. But in Europe we tend to let the criminals get away too easily which creates little respect for our systems and is a blow to the face of the victims of crime and thats too bad.

 

[o_mlly]

And hs limitations remain the same. A pope’s charism does not extend to science, sports or news. His authority is defined within the Church, but in temporal matters, opinion is still opinion…

Morality, how men relate one to the other, is always a temporal mattter. And how society effects distributive justice is always a moral and temporal matter within the pope’s charism.

The Church can establish the principles on matters such as capital punishment and the death penalty. It does not have authority over the application. That is always a matter of the prudential judgment of those with that authority. The responsibility of the Catholic is to understand these principles and apply them in their areas of authority, even if it is just one vote. We are totally free to disagree with anyone in a judgment, such as whether criminals can be safely incarcerated.

The Church’s authority is to propose; it does not impose. However, I think you draw a distinction between principle and application which is not very meaningful to me. For example, take the sentences in 2267 which you believe are merely “prudential opinion” and form the inverse. Do they make any sense to you?

"Today, in fact, as a consequence of the impossibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense capable of doing harm - definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very frequent.”

If the inverse statement is immoral (which I beleive it is), then the original statement has moral value.

As I have posted before, today about 1 out of every 100 adults is in jail. That so many are incarcerated is symptomatic of an underlying cultural problem. We have lost our way. The technology to improve the security in the prisons exists but society will not budget sufficient resources to implement the technology. Executing or early-release, I think, are alternatives which mask the problem of our cultural decay, relieve the budget conundrum, and allow society to defer facing our real problem. The pope, who is responsible to God for all souls, must speak out to society’s “band-aid” solution and, more importantly, to its failure in effecting distributive justice to all. If we didn’t execute or early-release, we would have to fund the prisons. If we funded the prisons, our leaders would put more effort in brining about a culture that doesn’t incarcerate 1% of its population. That, I think, would put Christ’s teachings back into the public square.

I am always open to evidence contrary to my opinion and have searched diligently for it. I have never even seen an attempt to explain this inexplicable axiom.

If the finite is to invade the infinite, it can only do so by invitation and on common ground. The invitation is Jesus Christ and the common ground is the gift of His theological virtue of charity.

Finding no common ground in human wisdom, Paul says, “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? . . .] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God” (1 Cor. 1:20, 3:18). While our finite mind cannot traverse the infinite, Paul believes our hearts can because we are created with an unlimited capacity for love. In the realm of charity, the Creator has allowed his creature to share a commonwealth—charity.

What about the virtue of justice? Justice is a cardinal virtue but it is only a human virtue; not theological. The Book of Job tells us clearly that man’s idea of justice is not God’s. Yet in God, the virtues of charity and justice must be consonant and not incongruent as they often are in man. That is, the demands of charity (and its corollary-- mercy) and justice in God are identities.

If we realize our justice is not God’s justice but our charity may be God’s charity, which virtue is more reliable when they conflict in relating to our neighbor? If we execute the inmate, I believe, the act, to have moral value, must emanate from our charity for the inmate. That does not mean we can never execute, it means it would be indeed rare.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Ender]

If you can find some church document that carries weight of doctrine that directly contradicts 2267, please cite it and quote it.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent - 1566.

“The just use of this power {to execute criminals}, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.”

From where I am sitting, it appears that you are willing to give your interpretation of historic church documents higher authority then the pope.

I could say exactly the same thing to you, the only difference being that I would be referencing different Church documents and different popes. There is one other difference, however, in that I try to reconcile everything that has been said while you have jettisoned everything that conflicts with 2267.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Just so we can all be certain we are looking at the same things here.
Please list the sentences contained in 2267 and specify which you believe are opinion and which are binding teaching.

I did a complete analysis of each piece of 2267 in post #58 but to summarize: the first clause of the first sentence states the Church’s traditional teaching, the second clause is simply wrong. The second and third sentences are opinion. The first clause alone is binding.

Ender

 

[vz71]

The second and third sentences are opinion. The first clause alone is binding.

Ender

OK, let me verify this and insure I understand right…

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

You believe the sentence quoted above is opinion.
Correct?

 

[Ender]

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

You believe the sentence quoted above is opinion.
Correct?

Yes.

Let me make an observation here: the sentence you quoted (that says “authority will limit itself”) is from the hard copy version of the Catechism. The on line version of Evangelium Vitae from the Vatican web site says *"authority **must *limit itself" and the on line version of the Catechism from the Vatican web site says *"authority **should *limit itself." I never noticed that before. Just more indication that no one really knows what this section says.

I have answered your questions now I would like you to answer some of mine starting with this one: what did Cardinal Ratzinger mean when he said this?

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

holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm

Ender*
*

 

[o_mlly]

…

I have answered your questions now I would like you to answer some of mine starting with this one: what did Cardinal Ratzinger mean when he said this?

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

holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm

Ender*
*

His Holiness was emphasizing that in our hierarchy of truths, the teachings regarding the taking of innocent lives is always and everywhere an intrinsic evil, specifically procured abortion and euthanasia. The taking of non-innocent lives is not intrinsically evil but may be justified based on circumstance. This is fully in concert with JP II’s teaching as B XVI comments in your citation that “the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals …”

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Ender]

His Holiness was emphasizing that in our hierarchy of truths, the teachings regarding the taking of innocent lives is always and everywhere an intrinsic evil, specifically procured abortion and euthanasia. The taking of non-innocent lives is not intrinsically evil but may be justified based on circumstance. This is fully in concert with JP II’s teaching as B XVI comments in your citation that “the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals …”

What he said was not merely that there are occasions that justify executions but that Catholics may legitimately disagree with the Church about what constitutes appropriate circumstances. What else could “legitimate diversity of opinion” mean? You didn’t address this phrase which really is the heart of the comment. Explain what you think this phrase is saying.

Ender

 

[o_mlly]

What he said was not merely that there are occasions that justify executions but that Catholics may legitimately disagree with the Church about what constitutes appropriate circumstances. What else could “legitimate diversity of opinion” mean? You didn’t address this phrase which really is the heart of the comment. Explain what you think this phrase is saying.

Ender

Circumstances regarding state execution of inmates change with each individual case and may be interpreted differently by different people. Some U.S states and foreign countries ban execution entirely; some do not.

The phrase “legitimate diversity of opinion” regarding the frequency of capital punishment is, in my opinion, not the heart of His Holiness’ comment. Read the title of the document: Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles. At best, the Pope’s (Cardinal at the time he published – we don’t believe in retroactive infallibility) reference to capital punishment is merely anecdotal to emphasize his main point that public figures who manifestly cooperate in promoting the intrinsically evil acts of abortion and euthanasia ought not to present themselves for Communion.

I see that I will not convince you that #2267 is in concert with all previous Magisterial statements and that the EV p. 56 is moral doctrine, not papal whimsy. So let us agree to disagree and end the exchange in peace.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[vz71]

Let me make an observation here: the sentence you quoted (that says “authority will limit itself”) is from the hard copy version of the Catechism.

No, it was not. I copied the text directly off of the online version.
To date, the online version and my own hard copy have agreed with every word.

what did Cardinal Ratzinger mean when he said this?
“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”

Well it always helps to place it in its proper context.

1. 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.

Seems he is discussing if someone should consider themselves worthy of receiving the precious body and blood of God.
He is stating that one could be in disagreement with the Pope concerning the application of capital punishment and war and still consider themselves worthy to receive.

There is nothing here to indicate 2267 to be in error at all.
Nor is there anything in here that disagrees with 2267.

 

[Ender]

The phrase “legitimate diversity of opinion” regarding the frequency of capital punishment is, in my opinion, not the heart of His Holiness’ comment.

What I meant was that the phrase was the heart of the sentence I quoted and I was asking for an interpretation of that sentence. I am very familiar with the document and agree that this statement was a very small part of it, but it is a part of it nonetheless and I am still waiting for someone to explain what it is we are not bound to accept but on which we are free to form our own opinions.

I see that I will not convince you that #2267 is in concert with all previous Magisterial statements …

You have made no attempt to convince me; you have simply stated that it is so without providing any supporting documentation. In contrast, I have provided documentation for pretty much every claim I have made. In refutation of your assertion above, here is a comment from Kevin Flannery S.J., professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome on this very point (2007):

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II.

[avemarialaw.edu/assets/documents/lawreview/articles/flannery.copyright.pdf](http://www.avemarialaw.edu/assets/documents/lawreview/articles/flannery.copyright.pdf)

… and that the EV p. 56 is moral doctrine, not papal whimsy.

Don’t be so dismissive of my position; it is one I share with a lot of people who have closely studied this issue, including Cardinal Avery Dulles.

So let us agree to disagree and end the exchange in peace.

Well, if we had agreed, the debate would have ended much sooner; our disagreement was the only reason it continued. If you are interested I have a lengthy list of articles on this subject which, if nothing else, should confirm what I said in an earlier post: the Church teaching on this subject is such a mess that no one is sure what to believe.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

My contention is, and always has been, this “If” will never be universal. Our level of technology will never outstrip the depth and ingenuity of evil.