Capital Punishment...

[o_mlly]

…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)

Did you read Flannery’s conclusion?
“IV. CONCLUSION
The truth that informs Pope John Paul II’s teaching on capital punishment is, I believe, that killing in itself is unnatural, but is allowed in exceptional circumstances.”

He does seem a little confused.

…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.
…Ender

I’m quite familiar with the late Cardinal Priest’s position as a subscriber to First Things. Perhaps you missed his April 2001 article Catholicism & Capital Punishment.
“The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.”
firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2175

Cardinal Dulles didn’t seem confused at all to me.

I think we can agree that of the three authors cited, only one is Magisterial; the others only commentators.

This is my last post on this topic.

Peace,
O’Malley

 

[Ender]

Did you read Flannery’s conclusion?
“IV. CONCLUSION
The truth that informs Pope John Paul II’s teaching on capital punishment is, I believe, that killing in itself is unnatural, but is allowed in exceptional circumstances.”

He does seem a little confused.

He earlier explained the distinction he was making by referring to the thought of Aristotle and Aquinas.

punishment is, in a sense, natural and, in another sense, unnatural. This, in turn, gives us a means of accepting both the traditional teaching that capital punishment is according to natural law and also Pope John Paul II’s teaching that it is “both cruel and unnecessary.”

I’m quite familiar with the late Cardinal Priest’s position as a subscriber to First Things. Perhaps you missed his April 2001 article Catholicism & Capital Punishment.
“The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.”

I have cited that very sentence several times as this is where Dulles states that 2267 is prudential … and prudential opinions are not binding which is why I am free to disagree with it.

I think we can agree that of the three authors cited, only one is Magisterial; the others only commentators.

I am content to restrict the debate to Dulles alone as there is no ambiguity in his position about the prudential nature of 2267 - he in fact states this twice - but there really is no justification for excluding everyone except members of the Magisterium from the debate. There are any number of very serious scholars weighing in on this topic and the validity of their arguments is not determined by membership in the Magisterium.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

I wasn’t citing that comment to show that 2267 is wrong but to show that BXVI believes at least some part of it is prudential - which is the only reason I can see why we could legitimately disagree with the Church concerning the application of capital punishment.

Ender

 

[BiologyBrain]

I personally think that the way the Catechism and other related documents read, we are allowed to agree to disagree. Abolishment of the death penalty is not an aim of the Church. Acceptance of the death penalty is not an aim of the Church. In reality, the Church realizes there are instances where the death penalty can be used prudently, but there are also instances where other suitable incarceration methods can be used. Its easy for the state to abuse either policy - either by executing too many/not guilty (not the same as innocent) or by releasing dangerous criminals into society. Its one of those lose-lose situations in my opinion. However, since its not strict doctrine of the Church to either oppose or defend capital punishment, we are free to agree to disagree. I think we’ve done a pretty good job of that!

 

[Ender]

However, since its not strict doctrine of the Church to either oppose or defend capital punishment, we are free to agree to disagree.

Up until now this has been one of the points I have been trying to make: we are free to form our own opinions on the application of capital punishment. That being the case I will go further and say I believe it is a mistake to oppose it. I realize this puts me in the company of very few others (and virtually none of the clergy), nonetheless, based on my understanding of what the Church teaches about justice, mercy, retribution, the sacredness of human life etc, I believe this is the correct position.

Ender

 

[vz71]

I wasn’t citing that comment to show that 2267 is wrong but to show that BXVI believes at least some part of it is prudential - which is the only reason I can see why we could legitimately disagree with the Church concerning the application of capital punishment.

Ender

Well the last sentence of the paragraph is an opinion.
Disagreements upon opinion are acceptable.

 

[NCSue]

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.

True, but “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

We need to look long and hard at our actions to make sure they don’t meet that standard.

 

[Ender]

Well the last sentence of the paragraph is an opinion.
Disagreements upon opinion are acceptable.

Thank you. We can now debate whether the second sentence is opinion as well but the debate about whether or not there are prudential statements in the Catechism is over. We both recognize that there are.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

True, but “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

We need to look long and hard at our actions to make sure they don’t meet that standard.

I don’t see that as being a problem. We already ban cruel and unusual punishment. Capital punishment is neither. Also, from a Catholic perspective, it is not an evil.

 

[Ender]

I believe it is a mistake to oppose {capital punishment}.

The historical understanding of punishment was that its primary objective was justice. This is still what the Church teaches but for whatever reason this concept is ignored by the current position on capital punishment, a position that seems to have forgotten the origin of the death penalty in the first place. It is precisely because life is so precious that the enormity of the sin of murder requires nothing less than the life of the murderer in expiation. In abandoning the use of grave punishment we lose understanding of the gravity of the crime.

*Is it possible for punishment to signify the gravity of crimes which deserve death if their perpetrators are never visited with execution? This seems unlikely. Consider the deviant who tortures small children to death for his pleasure or the ideologue who meditates the demise of innocent thousands for the sake of greater terror. Genesis says murderers deserve death *because *life is precious; man is made in the image of God. How convincing is our reverence for life if its mockers are suffered to live?

*Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice J. Budziszewskihttp://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7186
catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=7186

Ender