Capital punishment

[CrossofChrist]

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

Maybe so, but it seems the Church thinks abolishing the death penalty, or at least making its use extremely rare, would be beneficial.

Christendom went out the door in 1789 if you haven’t noticed.

Debatable. The ideals of the French Revolution are Christian at their core, even if the revolutionaries had a different idea of what “liberte, egalite, fraternite” mean.

*France’s motto, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, appropriately links the concern for individual freedom with the necessary attention to all our brethren, especially the lowliest and the weakest, from conception until natural death. * - St. JPII

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”.

Maybe that’s true, but our goal should be to evangelize the whole world and make the Gospel accessible to all, not to make ourselves feel good with a kind of Christian triumphalism.

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?”

I don’t know how to respond to this. Is it addressed to me? Nowhere did I say “crumbs of meaningless pastoral advisement”.

 

[livingwordunity]

Nowhere in Church teaching are we warned that the position of the Church regarding the death penalty is ‘prudential judgement’.

Rather than the Church calling capital punishment intrinsically evil and never acceptable, as She does with things like abortion, the Church gives a general outline of conditions by which capital punishment may or may not be acceptable which makes it prudential.

 

[z_0101]

The positions of the church are her doctrines, and she has no doctrines about the penal capabilities of individual nations. (…)
Ender

Would you agree that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the Doctrines of the Holy Mother Church?

If not why?

 

[CrossofChrist]

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.

I’m interested in how you interpret the following:

*Today… the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” - CCC 2267

The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness. - Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church 405
*

Also, would you agree that “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (CCC 2267)?

 

[Ender]

My intention was to respond specifically to the OP’s idea of executing leaders of nations, not the death penalty in general.

That’s a reasonable argument about which reasonable people may disagree.

How about this: the state has an obligation to create conditions that allow the Church to more effectively spread the Gospel.

There is a book called “God and the Founders” written by Phillip Munoz that addresses this question by examining three positions on religious freedom espoused by the founders (Jefferson, Washington, and Madison). They each had different positions on what the state should or should not do with regard to religion; this question is not a new one. Madison’s understanding was (if I remember this right) something akin to benign neglect and is probably the best approach.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Would you agree that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the Doctrines of the Holy Mother Church?

In most cases, of course, but the question here is whether 2267 is doctrinal or prudential. What is in the rest of the catechism is irrelevant to that point and it seems to me that it is unarguable that at least some of 2267 is prudential.

This is from the third sentence in that section:Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it…
I think you can see that this cannot be doctrinal by trying to devise a means to determine if it is true. How do we know that States can “effectively repress crime”? Would we look to earlier encyclicals or catechisms, or would we in fact go to statistical tables like the Bureau of Justice Statistics? How would you even define what “effectively repress” means? In fact as soon as you define what effective repression means (one recidivist killing a decade? 10 a year?) it becomes obvious that determining whether States can achieve that goal involves no moral analysis whatever; it would be purely a statistical analysis.

Whatever else may be true of 2267, this part at least is prudential.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m interested in how you interpret the following:

Today… the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” - CCC 2267

I believe “necessity” as it is used here applies solely to the evaluation of whether it is necessary to provide protection from recidivist killers. I consider this a very inadequate standard.

You cannot understand my position unless you fully understand the Church’s teaching on punishment, and especially what she considers to be its primary objective. 2267 gives the impression that the defense of society is the main consideration, but this is incorrect, as we were just told in 2266 that the primary objective is retribution, that is, justice. The statement above ignores the obligation of justice and doesn’t even consider whether the death penalty is necessary to satisfy that objective.*…this retributive function of punishment is concerned **not **immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. *(Pius XII)

The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness. - Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church 405

This is like reading a NY Times article in favor of some new piece of legislation; it is meant to persuade, not explain. I pretty much dismiss any argument that suggests our moral awareness has been heightened above that of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who were practically unanimous in their support of capital punishment.

Also, would you agree that “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (CCC 2267)?

No, I believe this claim is incorrect. The last clause (“if this is the only…”) has never been part of the traditional teaching. You can see this for yourself if you look. I can identify another half dozen earlier catechisms going back to the Catechism of St. Thomas and not a single one of them contains that restriction. Even the first edition of the current catechism published in 1992 did not contain it.*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. *(Kevin L. Flannery, S.J., Professor, Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)Ender

 

[livingwordunity]

In most cases, of course, but the question here is whether 2267 is doctrinal or prudential. What is in the rest of the catechism is irrelevant to that point and it seems to me that it is unarguable that at least some of 2267 is prudential.

This is from the third sentence in that section:Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it…
I think you can see that this cannot be doctrinal by trying to devise a means to determine if it is true. How do we know that States can “effectively repress crime”? Would we look to earlier encyclicals or catechisms, or would we in fact go to statistical tables like the Bureau of Justice Statistics? How would you even define what “effectively repress” means? In fact as soon as you define what effective repression means (one recidivist killing a decade? 10 a year?) it becomes obvious that determining whether States can achieve that goal involves no moral analysis whatever; it would be purely a statistical analysis.

Whatever else may be true of 2267, this part at least is prudential.

Ender

Good point.

 

[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

Where is this citation taken from? I was unable to find it.

Ender

 

[z_0101]

Would you agree that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the Doctrines of the Holy Mother Church?

If not why?

In most cases, of course, but the question here is whether 2267 is doctrinal or prudential. What is in the rest of the catechism is irrelevant to that point and it seems to me that it is unarguable that at least some of 2267 is prudential.
(…)
Ender

Please, I deleted the other junk, either answer my question or don’t.
I didn’t ask you about 2267 or any one specific section of the CCC, I asked about the CCC in general.

So, let me re-word this tad:

DO you agree that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the Doctrines of the Holy Mother Church and is in keeping with her Magisterium?

If not why?

If you cannot give a straight answer, then I must accept two things:

1. You have rejected the General Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church
2. That you are looking for a fight, and frankly, I have no need to fight you, nor will I.

 

[Ender]

Please, I deleted the other junk, either answer my question or don’t.

It was your question that was imprecise, not my answer.

I didn’t ask you about 2267 or any one specific section of the CCC, I asked about the CCC in general.

You phrased your question in such a way that no “yes or no” answer could be accurate.

So, let me re-word this tad:

DO you agree that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the Doctrines of the Holy Mother Church and is in keeping with her Magisterium?

Let me show you why this is poorly worded.

“Do you agree that men are taller than women?” Yes or no.

If I say yes then you can point out plenty of examples where the opposite is true, but if I say no you can point to the obvious fact that the average man is taller than the average woman. Your question is similarly phrased so that one answer cannot cover both the general and the specific issues.

How about if your question is phrased this way:

DO you agree that every statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is doctrinal?

This one I can answer: no.

If you cannot give a straight answer…

If you ask a straight question I can answer it.

…then I must accept two things:

1. You have rejected the General Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church
2. That you are looking for a fight, and frankly, I have no need to fight you, nor will I.

Neither of these is correct but you may assume what you will.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

This is like reading a NY Times article in favor of some new piece of legislation; it is meant to persuade, not explain. I pretty much dismiss any argument that suggests our moral awareness has been heightened above that of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, who were practically unanimous in their support of capital punishment.

Alright, but JPII assuredly agreed with that statement.

No, I believe this claim is incorrect. The last clause (“if this is the only…”) has never been part of the traditional teaching. You can see this for yourself if you look. I can identify another half dozen earlier catechisms going back to the Catechism of St. Thomas and not a single one of them contains that restriction. Even the first edition of the current catechism published in 1992 did not contain it.*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. *(Kevin L. Flannery, S.J., Professor, Pontifical Gregorian Univ, Rome)Ender

A punishment is always used within a specific historical context, and it must always be used in the way that will benefit society the most. The death penalty cannot be used in a purely neutral way; it will either benefit or harm society. The benefit given to society by a punishment is measured by how much the punishment serves humanity, both spiritually and corporeally. If human lives are defended without capital punishment, then the use of capital punishment in that same situation will harm human lives, at least in a spiritual or a moral way. So I believe that the Catechism states the traditional teaching of the Church, even if it’s not stated in the traditional way.

 

[Ender]

A punishment is always used within a specific historical context, and it must always be used in the way that will benefit society the most.

Where is this asserted? What papal encyclical or comment from a Doctor or Father of the Church supports this idea? I think what you have done here is to mingle parts of two concepts that are in fact distinct. There may be prudential objections to capital punishment, specific conditions that may argue against its use. This has nothing to do with punishment in general, however, and it is not correct to imply that punishment is determined solely or even mostly by historical context.

As to the justness of a punishment, that is dependent on whether its severity is appropriate to the severity of the crime; it must be neither too lenient nor too severe. Since the severity of (at least) the crime of murder cannot change with time, if capital punishment for such a crime was ever just then it is always just, even if it is frequently unwise to use it in specific instances. You cannot use a prudential objection (it won’t benefit modern societies) to a doctrinal definition (the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime). That something is just but unwise does not make it unjust.

If human lives are defended without capital punishment, then the use of capital punishment in that same situation will harm human lives, at least in a spiritual or a moral way.

The problem with this (unsupported) assertion is that it addresses only one of the four objectives of punishment while totally ignoring the other three. This is the problem with 2267, which essentially does the same thing. I’ll point out, again, that defense is merely a secondary objective of punishment. Why should not a concern with the primary objective be more important?

So I believe that the Catechism states the traditional teaching of the Church, even if it’s not stated in the traditional way.

This is the point where words start to lose their meanings. 2267 asserts something that seems demonstrably unsupported by history and, in order to overcome that problem, you have had to introduce concepts that have nowhere been advanced by any Church document, and reshape the actual words into something you find more reasonable. As much as anything else I think this shows the tenuousness of your position.

Ender

 

[z_0101]

It was your question that was imprecise, not my answer.
You phrased your question in such a way that no “yes or no” answer could be accurate.
Let me show you why this is poorly worded.

“Do you agree that men are taller than women?” Yes or no.

If I say yes then you can point out plenty of examples where the opposite is true, but if I say no you can point to the obvious fact that the average man is taller than the average woman. Your question is similarly phrased so that one answer cannot cover both the general and the specific issues.

How about if your question is phrased this way:

DO you agree that every statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is doctrinal?

This one I can answer: no.
If you ask a straight question I can answer it.
Neither of these is correct but you may assume what you will.

Ender

Please, go run for President of the US… you have double speak down to an art-form.

The question is clear enough:
DO you agree that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states the Doctrines of the Holy Mother Church and is in keeping with her Magisterium?

Any reasonable person, i.e. not a politician or anyone looking to turn sideways thru the door, would read this question to be inquiring if you agree that the CCC, in its entirety, states the Doctrines of the Holy Mother Church and is in keeping with her Magisterium.

And, after a considerable amount of fluff and stuff you do finally give me the answer:
Of course, on your terms…

DO you agree that every statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is doctrinal?

This one I can answer: no.

The CCC is promulgated by Pope St. John Paul II in accordance with the Second Ecumenical Council​

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION FIDEI DEPOSITUM
ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH (click here)
3. The Doctrinal Value of the Text

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by **virtue of my Apostolic Authority**, is a statement of the Church's faith **and of catholic doctrine**, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure **norm for teaching the faith** and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!
The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the ***Successor of Peter ***wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus' disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

---

If you reject any part of the CCC then you reject part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and the teachings of the Successor of Peter. By rejecting him (Luke10:16) you reject Christ, and therefor the Father.
Please, don’t take this wrong; however, based on just Luke10:16, I fear for the sake of your eternal soul, please address this with your confessor for I am truly worried about your soul! – and I know you cannot hear the true concern in my voice… the short coming of text. I am most sincere in this, I have no unkind intention what soever in the statement. I’ll add a prayer for you to those I already have for my next Holy Hour.

We do not have a “take this” and “leave that” faith.
Either you are in communion with the Church or you are not… that is something that most Catholics do not want to hear, and they do so at their own peril… how many A&P-Catholics do you know, and common sense tells one that they’re just not getting how serious the faith is… this is life or death stuff!

You do not want to accept the CCC then you do so against the teachings of Christ, thru Peter by his successor Pope St. John Paul II - and I worry about you.

 

[sallybutler]

This is my view on capitol punishment

1. I accept that the Church says it is okay when there is no other way of preventing the person from committing a similar crime.
2. I could not be an executioner
3. I can not ask someone else to be the executioner
4. The United States has the ability to keep criminals in lockup for life which protects others from them.

Therefore, I cannot support capitol punishment in the United States.

 

[djames99]

No!

Everybody has the right to reconcile with God.

We do not have the right to stop somebody from doing that.

 

[nmgauss]

This is my view on capitol punishment

1. I accept that the Church says it is okay when there is no other way of preventing the person from committing a similar crime.
2. I could not be an executioner
3. I can not ask someone else to be the executioner
4. The United States has the ability to keep criminals in lockup for life which protects others from them.

Therefore, I cannot support capitol punishment in the United States.

Are you comfortable with the government taking money from you to provide comfortable support to incarcerated criminals? Are you comfortable with the government compelling you to pay for comfortable accommodations for convicted murderers?

 

[Ender]

Any reasonable person, i.e. not a politician or anyone looking to turn sideways thru the door, would read this question to be inquiring if you agree that the CCC, in its entirety, states the Doctrines of the Holy Mother Church and is in keeping with her Magisterium.

Now that you have added in its entirety I can give a yes or no answer. No.

If you reject any part of the CCC then you reject part of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, and the teachings of the Successor of Peter. By rejecting him (Luke10:16) you reject Christ, and therefor the Father.

What nonsense. My position is neither more nor less than that of Cardinal Dulles, who also referred to that section of the catechism as prudential. Beyond that, however, is the fact that at least part of 2267 is transparently prudential.…given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime …
The assertion that a state can effectively repress crime (via incarceration) is a judgment. No one could possibly believe this is a doctrine. How would you even go about trying to prove this claim is correct? By citing Aquinas or by evaluating data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics? How would you even define what effective repression means without reference to the numbers involved?

We do not have a “take this” and “leave that” faith.
Either you are in communion with the Church or you are not…

Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)
*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger)
I’m sure I am more in need of prayers than these two, but not because of my position on capital punishment.

Ender

 

[sallybutler]

Are you comfortable with the government taking money from you to provide comfortable support to incarcerated criminals? Are you comfortable with the government compelling you to pay for comfortable accommodations for convicted murderers?

Yes.

 

[nmgauss]

Yes.

Why? After you earn your paycheck, having it taken for the benefit of criminals is OK? Are you altruistic toward human predators?