If you were more comfortable that your position was accurate and that you could defend it perhaps you would not be so anxious to cut off the debate. If an assertion is made that you believe contradicts church doctrine then you should be able to explain why it is wrong. I have no doubt that if you join the debate you will find defending your position is going to be much more difficult than you can imagine.
Your line of faulty logic has become white noise since our dear John Paul was elevated to Saint last Sunday (although he was Saint the moment of his death).
Thank you for twisting my words to fit your assumptions and bias.
My intentions are quite simple. I want to answer the question you raised in post #10 and #13. I know how I would make that argument to a Catholic, but since you identify yourself as “Secular Humanist”, I don’t know what common starting point I can use to make my case. It does no good to make an argument to you unless I can start from a place where we agree. Since I assume that we both agree that mental patients should be supported rather than killed to save money, I want you to make the case for supporting mental patients with tax money as if you were talking with someone who needed convincing. So I’ll ask you for the fourth time, do you have any argument why tax money should be used to support the severely mentally disabled?
As long as there is government money being spent on food stamps, Social Security Disability, subsidized help for Obamacare, I see no reason to deny help to the severely mentally disabled. We are affluent, and can easily fund all these needs. If we were as poor as Haiti, then I would say, “No way!”.
This unpleasantness isn’t necessary but if you’re going to accuse me of something at least be specific. I can’t respond to generic insults.
Church teaching on capital punishment did not begin in 1995 (but even if it did your position is still not as strong as you believe it to be.)
If the primary objective of punishment was security from future crime this might be a valid argument, but security is in fact only a secondary objective, so the assertion is not correct.
Are we then to ignore all the other popes and Saints who weighed in on this topic?
I can’t speak for others but I am actually quite familiar with what this catechism says about capital punishment (and a half dozen earlier catechisms as well.)
If you wish to challenge my familiarity with what JPII has said, go for it.
If you think scripture supports you then make your case for it. Please, say something specific.
The church has addressed this:Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
And she has addressed this as well…And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate… (Catechism of St. Thomas)
If my logic is faulty you have yet to demonstrate where it fails, and this comment is no improvement. You still think I reject JPII’s new doctrine on capital punishment when I’ve pointed out several times that I don’t believe he gave us a new doctrine but instead provided a prudential objection to its use. Unlike you I am not forced to choose between JPII and everyone who went before him, my understanding of what has been said about capital punishment doesn’t begin in 1995 but incorporates everything the church has said (that I have been able to find).
You surely must recognize that cultural objections are prudential, not doctrinal. I don’t think JPII’s position is any different than St. Augustine’s, who also disapproved of the use of capital punishment in his cultural situation even while recognizing (doctrinally) the validity of its use.
Ah, you mean men like virtually all the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as well as the 260+ popes preceding JPII?
Nowhere in Church teaching are we warned that the position of the Church regarding the death penalty is ‘prudential judgement’. Perhaps if you regard all decisions of the State as culturally relevant to the common good we can agree that every punishment is one of prudential judgement whether it resorts to the death penalty or abolishes it.
That would be extremely imprudent. The result would be chaos.
The love of Christ is expressed in a fuller way when we are merciful to those who have committed grave crimes. When society demands capital punishment, odds are they don’t have in mind divine justice but rather vengeance. So the Church has wisely said the death penalty should in practice be non-existent.
The positions of the church are her doctrines, and she has no doctrines about the penal capabilities of individual nations. The opinions of individuals about how those doctrines ought to be applied in particular circumstances are prudential. The prudential opinions of individual churchmen, including popes, do not constitute church doctrine.
Yes. The church identifies the objectives and specifies the bounds of acceptable behavior, but within those guidelines it is up to the individual to choose what actions he believes will best achieve those ends.
When actions don’t turn out the way one hopes and expects they are mistakes, not sins.
To claim that applying the death penalty would lead to chaos is a very different thing than asserting the action itself would be unjust.
The individual is obligated to forgive but the state is obligated to punish. They have very different roles.* …when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance. *(St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 13) Ender
St John Paul as Pope and spiritual leader of the world, inspired by the Holy Spirit and in communion with the Bishops, firmly and clearly outlines the Church teaching on capital punishment as follows…
Along with reciting what the catechism says you added your interpretation of what it means, and your interpretation is surely open to question given that you have not provided any compelling defense of it beyond simply asserting that it is true.*Nothing further needs to be explained or qualified. Everything is said and we can believe. *(Post #32)
From the start of this conversation, it is your interpretation that is at odds with the clear and simple teaching of 2267. I, like most Catholics, take it at face value and it makes sense. Capital punishment is a resort that served the common good of the societies of the past, but is no longer necessary. This is not suggesting a moratorium. It is a call for abolition of a cruel and unworthy punishment. These are not opinions of one random man. This comes to us through the living teaching Magisterium of the Church.
St John Paul has contributed to development of the Doctrine served by the use of capital punishment in the past. I’m guessing that you are from the US where capital punishment is still practiced and culturally accepted. The State in Australia I live in abolished the death penalty in 1922 and in the whole of Australia the last execution was in 1967 so I view this development as natural and in keeping with true human equality and dignity.
The Church maintains that the doctrine on faith and morals that it presents as definitive is infallible. Again you are confused on a “Capital punishment doctrine” vs pastoral advisement.