Capital punishment

[Paxtibi]

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.

Romans 13 : 1 - 7 This is the “Doctrinal” position from Public or Divine Revelation which was expounded on by Thomas Aquinas.

Doctrine / Dogma are not “developed naturally” nor “artificailly” , they are the result of
Divine Revelation. I have yet to find a prohibition of capital punishment in scripture.
Until a Pontiff promulgates ex-cathedra the prohibition of capital punishment (which I
am sure will never happen) it is the concern of the State authorities whether I agree
with it or not. It is not a matter of Faith.

Where I reside and the cultural acceptance has nothing to do with the Faith. We both
reside in States where abortion is “culturally accepted”. One practice is prohibited by
Divine Law the other is not addressed.

There has been a lot of sophistry and ignorance throw around on this subject and thread. Misinterpretation of what is Dogma, Doctrine, the catechism, where the 5th commandment applies, where divine revenge applies and the absurd description of Christ on the cross with the thief and calling down legions … a lot of spouting for the sake of spouting.

God is a mystery. We know only what He has chosen to reveal. Human equality and dignity are of the realm of God, not what man defines based on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the UN, the latest political, social or philosophical mood of the day. Christ is the second person of the Godhead. The God who commanded the Israelites to destroy men, women, children and livestock and the same God who fed 5000.

 

[Ender]

From the start of this conversation, it is your interpretation that is at odds with the clear and simple teaching of 2267.

It is not my interpretation. I have several times pointed out that it is the understanding of Cardinal Dulles. I happen to agree with it but it is not my opinion that carries weight, it is his.

I, like most Catholics, take it at face value and it makes sense.

As I have taken great pains to point out, taken at face value it makes no sense at all inasmuch as that would contradict not only everything said on the subject prior to JPII but other passages in that same section of the catechism.

Capital punishment is a resort that served the common good of the societies of the past, but is no longer necessary.

We have a different understanding of what is “necessary.” I include justice in that category while you have limited it solely to protection.

It is a call for abolition of a cruel and unworthy punishment.

You forget (or ignore) that the church has always supported a state’s right to impose the death penalty. Your argument is an assertion that the church supports cruelty.

These are not opinions of one random man. This comes to us through the living teaching Magisterium of the Church.

All of the church’s doctrines on this subject prior to JPII also came through the living teaching Magisterium. Are we to understand that the Holy Spirit misled the Magisterium for 20 centuries before finally revealing the truth to them in 1997?

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

This is the distinction Cardinal Dulles made: that section of the catechism is not doctrine itself but is a prudential judgment about the application of doctrine.Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.

Romans 13 : 1 - 7 This is the “Doctrinal” position from Public or Divine Revelation which was expounded on by Thomas Aquinas.

The church’s doctrine is based on two scriptural passages.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). * (Dulles)

Until a Pontiff promulgates ex-cathedra the prohibition of capital punishment (which I am sure will never happen)…

As you say… not likely to happen.*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput)
Ender

 

[Paxtibi]

Ender, well put.

I am not familiar with Dulles nor Chaput’s expositions on the subject (Civis Romanus Sum ) however it is what would be expected from pastors of the Church.

Your two most recent replies are correct.

For the “fuzzy” in mind I leave the following statements from rather “recent” Popes :

“I accept with sincere belief the doctrine of faith as handed down to us from the Apostles by the orthodox Fathers, always in the same sense and with the same interpretation.”

“It is an error to believe that Christ did not teach a determined body of doctrine applicable to all times and to all men, but rather that He inaugurated a religious movement adapted, or to be adapted, to different times and different places.”
Pope St. Pius X

“We are not, therefore, teachers of a doctrine drawn from human minds, but-----conscious of our charge-----we ought to embrace and follow that which Christ Our Lord taught and Whose teaching, by a solemn commandment, He committed to His Apostles and to their successors … Moreover, since We are very certain that this doctrine which we must safeguard in all its integrity is Divinely revealed, We repeat the words of the Apostle of the Nations: “But though we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach to you a Gospel besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1: 8).”
Pope Pius XII

“The sacred deposit of truth must be safeguarded. It is absolutely vital that the Church never for an instant lose sight of the holy patrimony of truth inherited from the Fathers … This is the certain and unchangeable doctrine to which the faithful owe obedience.”
Pope St. John XXIII

“Is the hierarchy perhaps free to teach what they find most to their liking on matters of religion, or what they expect will be most pleasing to the proponents of certain current views opposed to all doctrine? Certainly not! The prime duty of the episcopate is to transmit strictly and faithfully the original message of Christ, the sum total of the truths which He revealed and confided to the Apostles as necessary for salvation.”
Pope Paul VI

“The present or “current” teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction of the past.”
Pope St. John Paul II… note “no kind of development”

Pax et Bonum

 

[LongingSoul]

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.

Romans 13 : 1 - 7 This is the “Doctrinal” position from Public or Divine Revelation which was expounded on by Thomas Aquinas.

Doctrine / Dogma are not “developed naturally” nor “artificailly” , they are the result of
Divine Revelation. I have yet to find a prohibition of capital punishment in scripture.
Until a Pontiff promulgates ex-cathedra the prohibition of capital punishment (which I
am sure will never happen) it is the concern of the State authorities whether I agree
with it or not. It is not a matter of Faith.

Where I reside and the cultural acceptance has nothing to do with the Faith. We both
reside in States where abortion is “culturally accepted”. One practice is prohibited by
Divine Law the other is not addressed.

There has been a lot of sophistry and ignorance throw around on this subject and thread. Misinterpretation of what is Dogma, Doctrine, the catechism, where the 5th commandment applies, where divine revenge applies and the absurd description of Christ on the cross with the thief and calling down legions … a lot of spouting for the sake of spouting.

God is a mystery. We know only what He has chosen to reveal. Human equality and dignity are of the realm of God, not what man defines based on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the UN, the latest political, social or philosophical mood of the day. Christ is the second person of the Godhead. The God who commanded the Israelites to destroy men, women, children and livestock and the same God who fed 5000.

No, I’m certainly not confused on even one aspect of the Catechisms treatment of capital punishment. Neither do I believe that the “Church was wrong for 2000 years” as Ender loves to attribute to me. The Church has always taught that in the commission of its duty to the public order and the common good… the State has legitimate recourse to the death penalty. Unlike murder which is defined by an intention and internal disposition of malice and vengence of the perpetrator… a capital sentence is impelled by pure motives of defense of society devoid of any hint of vengeance. It serves practical purposes in the States commission of duty to the common good and in that role, is symbolic of Gods retribution since as Card. Dulles stresses…

Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.

The growth in knowledge and awareness of the unique and extraordinary nature of human beings that comes with scientific and medical research, has exposed things like the injustice of discrimination. It also exposes the lack of any true basis for one person to judge anothers intrinsic worth. That coupled with penal security that affords the community a greater sense of safety from aggressive criminals, requires a deeper examination of the role of the death penalty in the modern context.

We are not superior or more godly than past generations. We have as the generations do, solved some of the issues that had previously supported the use of the death penalty and become increasingly aware of the diverse reasons that drive people into crime. We are more aware of our social responsibility to not only our immediate family, but our local, national and international family and more capable of helping others who fall, to return to society or to contribute from within their incarceration.

All of these developments in society, force us to look at the role of punishment and especially the role of the fatal punishment from the knowledge we have. Most of us as Catholics looking towards the Church for guidance in the light of the age we live in, understand our responsibility towards our fellow man and the common good of all society and sense within us the need to abolish the death penalty. It’s just controlling and greedy to prevent the faithful from drinking fully from the living well of Catholic doctrine by giving them a crumb of meaningless “pastural advisement” because they are too “fuzzy” in the head to be trusted with 2000 years of doctrine.

The catechism speaks to us of doctrines and the teachings that serve those doctrines and the Catholic faithful will embrace this for what it is really worth whether you all want to coin them as prudential judgement or pastural advisements or fish and chip paper.

 

[CrossofChrist]

To claim that applying the death penalty would lead to chaos is a very different thing than asserting the action itself would be unjust.

When did I say it would be unjust? But using capital punishment to take out all authority in unstable countries is probably not a smart thing to do IMO.

The individual is obligated to forgive but the state is obligated to punish.

The state has an obligation to make the Gospel as accessible to all people as possible, staying of course within its sphere of influence. When people see the Church as cold hearted and unforgiving, as many do today, it’s especially important to show forth the mercy of Christ as clearly as possible. Christ’s love isn’t really shown forth to the world when we clamor for the death penalty.

The state must punish, but it isn’t obligated to use the death penalty.

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

IMO the death penalty almost encourages citizens to foster a desire for revenge. Of course you are free to disagree with that opinion, but how many people in our day and age have in mind the idea of retribution as the Church teaches?

 

[Ender]

When did I say it would be unjust? But using capital punishment to take out all authority in unstable countries is probably not a smart thing to do IMO.

There may well be practical reasons not to use capital punishment in particular situations, and while I may disagree with others on specific cases I recognize the legitimacy of the position, even if I disagree with its accuracy. What I do not recognize as legitimate is any argument that holds capital punishment to be immoral.

The state has an obligation to make the Gospel as accessible to all people as possible, staying of course within its sphere of influence.

I see this as the church’s obligation, not the state’s.

Christ’s love isn’t really shown forth to the world when we clamor for the death penalty.

It is not “clamoring” for capital punishment to support the morality of its use, especially as this is something the church has always done.

IMO the death penalty almost encourages citizens to foster a desire for revenge. Of course you are free to disagree with that opinion, but how many people in our day and age have in mind the idea of retribution as the Church teaches?

It is not only people in general who have no conception of retribution as the church teaches it, it is Catholics as well, and the commonest example of this is the fact that so few of them realize that retribution is the primary objective of all punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

“The present or “current” teaching of the Church does not admit of a development that is either a reversal or a contradiction of the past.”
Pope St. John Paul II.

All of your citations were relevant, but none more so than this. Clearly JPII would not support the idea that he has given us a modern doctrine on capital punishment that repudiates 2000 years of church teaching.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

All of your citations were relevant, but none more so than this. Clearly JPII would not support the idea that he has given us a modern doctrine on capital punishment that repudiates 2000 years of church teaching.

Ender

Exactly why we can safely embrace CCC2267 as defined by Evangelium Vitae.

 

[Ender]

… a capital sentence is impelled by pure motives of defense of society devoid of any hint of vengeance.

This is totally wrong. All punishment is directed at four objectives: defense, rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution, and of those four the primary objective is not defense but retribution, that is, retributive justice.

Your interpretation of CCC 2267 compels you to take the position you have, even though it also obliges you to ignore what was just expressed in 2266: “*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *If that passage means what it says then it has to be understood that capital sentences - and all other sentences as well - are impelled not by motives of defense but by a desire for justice, which assuredly includes “a hint of vengeance.”

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

This is totally wrong. All punishment is directed at four objectives: defense, rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution, and of those four the primary objective is not defense but retribution, that is, retributive justice.

Your interpretation of CCC 2267 compels you to take the position you have, even though it also obliges you to ignore what was just expressed in 2266: “*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *If that passage means what it says then it has to be understood that capital sentences - and all other sentences as well - are impelled not by motives of defense but by a desire for justice, which assuredly includes “a hint of vengeance.”

Ender

Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice. - Card. Dulles

 

[Paxtibi]

The state has an obligation to make the Gospel as accessible to all people as possible, staying of course within its sphere of influence. When people see the Church as cold hearted and unforgiving, as many do today, it’s especially important to show forth the mercy of Christ as clearly as possible. Christ’s love isn’t really shown forth to the world when we clamor for the death penalty.

The State in this "post-enlightenment " age is more apt to frustrate the Gospel, uless the gospel being propagated has been tailored or watered down to suit the social engineers

Christendom went out the door in 1789 if you haven’t noticed. Those who see the Church as cold hearted and unforgiving are more likely those who oppose the NON-NEGOTIABLE Dogma and doctrines of the Church. History is the witness in this case. So “the many of today” more than likely are those who as you say “want their cake and eat it too”.

The mecry and love of Christ is thrown around these days like some kind of cheap tender.
“If YOU love ME YOU will keep my commandments” … If I am not mistaken the first words out of Christ’s mouth and also Peter on Pentecost were “REPENT” but we only hear this mildly during the Lenten season. We have become far too knowledgable in science and psychology to fall for all that medieval practices and thinking.

Ah, the “common good” … which common good ? The common good defined by the secular world ?

“crumbs of meaningless pastoral advisement” … a true “fuzzy” response

And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”

 

[Ender]

Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice. - Card. Dulles

What is this citation meant to prove? What point are you trying to make? Looking at the context of that passage what is the point Dulles is making? Here is what he goes on to say:
… in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.
He is assuredly not asserting that capital punishment is not a proper means of retribution, he is pointing out that modern societies simply don’t understand the nature of retribution, a misunderstanding you yourself share as evidenced by your earlier comment that punishment should be applied “without a hint of vengeance.”

I don’t know exactly what you are arguing here but I’m pretty sure this passage doesn’t support it. Look at the middle sentence in the passage I cited (which immediately followed the one you cited). In it Dulles contrasts the view of capital punishment of earlier (Christian) societies with that of modern states, where the latter see it as “a self-assertive act of vengeance” while the former understood it to be “the divine judgment on objective evil.”

This is a point you cannot get past and why capital punishment cannot ever be viewed as immoral, cruel, or unnecessary. It is the divine judgment on objective evil.

Ender

 

[Ender]

When people see the Church as cold hearted and unforgiving, as many do today, it’s especially important to show forth the mercy of Christ as clearly as possible.

You speak in such generalities it is difficult to respond to your comments without making assumptions about what you mean.

If you are suggesting that to show “the mercy of Christ” means that everyone who justly deserves the death penalty should be given a reduced sentence then this is a misunderstanding of mercy and it is certainly not the way the Church understands it, as these comments show. Mercy coexists with justice, it does not trump it. A charity that loves and serves the person is never able to be separated from justice… (JPII, Christifideles Laici)

• Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it * (JPII, Dives in Misericordia)
• Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) "obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, *(Aquinas citing Augustine)
• It is essential to fault that it be voluntary; and in this respect it deserves punishment rather than mercy. *(Aquinas, ST II-II 30,3)
• There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. *(Ibid II-II 67 4,1)

Christ’s love isn’t really shown forth to the world when we clamor for the death penalty.

Are we really to believe that Christ and God have different positions on this? That God demanded capital punishment in the Old Testament and Christ reversed that position in the New? Nowhere do we find Christ condemning it, rather we see that he recognized the right of States to apply it.

Ender

 

[Paxtibi]

Ender , I was quoting a statement made by CrossofChrist

I understand full well Justice and Mercy

And may I add your reply prior to this was dare I say very “Thomistic” and absolutely CORRECT.

 

[Paxtibi]

Ender , I was quoting a statement made by CrossofChrist

I understand full well Justice and Mercy

And may I add your reply prior to this was dare I say very “Thomistic” and absolutely CORRECT.

 

[LongingSoul]

What is this citation meant to prove? What point are you trying to make? Looking at the context of that passage what is the point Dulles is making? Here is what he goes on to say:
… in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.
He is assuredly not asserting that capital punishment is not a proper means of retribution, he is pointing out that modern societies simply don’t understand the nature of retribution, a misunderstanding you yourself share as evidenced by your earlier comment that punishment should be applied “without a hint of vengeance.”

I don’t know exactly what you are arguing here but I’m pretty sure this passage doesn’t support it. Look at the middle sentence in the passage I cited (which immediately followed the one you cited). In it Dulles contrasts the view of capital punishment of earlier (Christian) societies with that of modern states, where the latter see it as “a self-assertive act of vengeance” while the former understood it to be “the divine judgment on objective evil.”

This is a point you cannot get past and why capital punishment cannot ever be viewed as immoral, cruel, or unnecessary. It is the divine judgment on objective evil.

Ender

St John Paul himself described capital punishment in our day as cruel, unnecessary and an unworthy punishment so I’m not pulling these ideas from thin air.

If Card. Dulles is saying that “In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group.”… why does that not render a death penalty immoral, cruel or unnecessary? If it is an act of ‘pay back’ appeasing a base human desire, how does it remain ‘a divine judgement’?

It’s moral quality is drawn from the disposition of the State that pronounces it, otherwise there could be no reason, pastoral or legal, to call for it to be abolished.

It is not a divine law. It is not intrinsically holy. It’s efficacy is derived from the intention of the State that applies it. When the people are repelled by it as an unjust measure and not in keeping with the common good and basic human dignity, the State who represents them is compelled to abolish it. Such a decision is the duty of the State and perfectly in line with the Christian principles of mercy and forgiveness. It was only ever representative of the vengeance of God in its practical use to serve the common good. Human vengeance does not represent Gods vengeance and we are to eliminate it from our use of penal sentencing most especially capital punishment.

As per the Bishops of the United States…

“As Catholics, we need to ask the following: How can we restore our respect for law and life? How can we protect and rebuild communities, confront crime without vengeance, and defend life without taking life? These questions challenge us as pastors and as teachers of the Gospel….

A Catholic approach begins with the recognition that the dignity of the human person applies to both victim and offender. As bishops, we believe that the current trend of more prisons and more executions, with too little education and drug treatment, does not truly reflect Christian values and will not really leave our communities safer. We are convinced that our tradition and our faith offer better alternatives that can hold offenders accountable and challenge them to change their lives; reach out to victims and reject vengeance; restore a sense of community and resist the violence that has engulfed so much of our culture….

At the same time, a Catholic approach does not give up on those who violate these laws. We believe that both victims and offenders are children of God. Despite their very different claims on society, their lives and dignity should be protected and respected. We seek justice, not vengeance. We believe punishment must have clear purposes: protecting society and rehabilitating those who violate the law….

Our pastoral presence to victims must be compassionate and constant, which includes developing victim ministry programs. Such programs will teach ministers to acknowledge the emotional strain felt by victims, to understand that the search for wholeness can take a very long time, and to encourage victims to redirect their anger from vengeance to true justice and real healing….

The death penalty offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life. We ask all Catholics—pastors, catechists, educators, and parishioners—to join us in rethinking this difficult issue and committing ourselves to pursuing justice without vengeance. With our Holy Father, we seek to build a society so committed to human life that it will not sanction the killing of any human person.”

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm

 

[Ender]

St John Paul himself described capital punishment in our day as cruel, unnecessary and an unworthy punishment so I’m not pulling these ideas from thin air.

If you wish to argue that any punishment which is unnecessarily harsh is cruel, and that capital punishment is unnecessarily harsh in modern societies, therefore it is cruel (in modern societies) you should at least recognize that “cruel” in this sense is merely a relative term meaning little more than “I strongly disapprove.”

If Card. Dulles is saying that “In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group.”… why does that not render a death penalty immoral, cruel or unnecessary? If it is an act of ‘pay back’ appeasing a base human desire, how does it remain ‘a divine judgement’?

It remains a divine judgment because that it what it is, and what it is is not determined by what people think about it. What he said was that the “modern perspective” sees it differently, but how something is perceived surely does not change its real nature.

It’s moral quality is drawn from the disposition of the State that pronounces it, otherwise there could be no reason, pastoral or legal, to call for it to be abolished.

A State’s opposition to capital punishment is no more a moral statement than the passage of a trade bill. In both cases it is merely doing what it thinks will produce the most optimal result. These are both utterly practical decisions.

It is not a divine law.

There seems to be a difference of opinion on this.*-Objection: Therefore it seems that the punishment of death should not be inflicted for a sin. *
*-On the contrary, These punishments are fixed by divine law… *(Aquinas ST II-II 108,3,3)

It is not intrinsically holy.

Well, yeah. No human action is intrinsically holy. Actions can be intrinsically bad but they cannot be intrinsically good.

It’s efficacy is derived from the intention of the State that applies it.

If this was true then most problems would have disappeared long ago. In fact, the efficacy of an action derives from its concrete results; it is independent of the intentions that motivated it.

When the people are repelled by it as an unjust measure and not in keeping with the common good and basic human dignity, the State who represents them is compelled to abolish it.

I’m pretty sure the morality of an act is not determined by whether “the people” support or oppose it.

It was only ever representative of the vengeance of God in its practical use to serve the common good.

That’s not actually how God described it.

Human vengeance does not represent Gods vengeance and we are to eliminate it from our use of penal sentencing most especially capital punishment.

No, this goes way too far. This is a rejection of the church’s doctrines on punishment.

As per the Bishops of the United States…
We ask …

All the proof needed to show that even the bishops understand 2267 is not doctrinal. They don’t ask us to adhere to doctrines.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

All the proof needed to show that even the bishops understand 2267 is not doctrinal. They don’t ask us to adhere to doctrines.

Ender

There comes an interesting point in every discussion with you where all is clear. I do not believe this is about my supposed misunderstanding of Church teaching… it is about the post VII Church and its supposed illegitimacy to teach. Listen up you Catholics. Ignore these so called ‘popes’ of the last 40 years. Nothing they say is ‘doctrinal’.

As always, that is it for me.

 

[CrossofChrist]

There may well be practical reasons not to use capital punishment in particular situations, and while I may disagree with others on specific cases I recognize the legitimacy of the position, even if I disagree with its accuracy. What I do not recognize as legitimate is any argument that holds capital punishment to be immoral.

Maybe I should have been clearer about what I meant; in my personal opinion, it would generally be a bad idea to execute the leaders of countries that are involved in a war, as this would likely lead to a lack of order within the state. This lack of order would essentially guarantee a lack of justice. My intention was to respond specifically to the OP’s idea of executing leaders of nations, not the death penalty in general.

I see this as the church’s obligation, not the state’s.

Yeah, I definitely phrased that poorly. How about this: the state has an obligation to create conditions that allow the Church to more effectively spread the Gospel.