capital punishment

[LongingSoul]

The whole of paragraph 405 was not relevant to the question being discussed so it was unnecessary to cite all of it. Apparently addressing one point at a time is still one point too many.

Ender

The poster said “Officially the church might not be against it but he personally is.”… so you pick a sentence that is completely irrelevant to agree with it when the actual paragraph 405 begins “***The Church sees ***as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society.”

It beggars belief how you twist and distort doctrine.

For our entertainment, how about you give one of your dismissive critiques of the last 2 sentences of 405.

The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”.[836] 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**.

Let me start for you… “Oh that says that the Popes irrelevant opinion is that this is the sign of non American heathens don’t know nuffin about justice and its got nothing to do with morality”.

Go on then, how do you explain 405 saying the move to abolition is the result of “heightened **moral **awareness”?

 

[Rau]

It is a judgment. I have said this for years. There is no justification in trying to distort my comments by applying your definitions to my statements. Deal with the concept, don’t engage in verbal games.

Ender

I’ve distorted nothing. Your word, your characterisation of the statement in the Catechism, in post #287 was “personal” - a personal statement. I say it is a conclusion reached by the Church. Deal with the concept.

 

[Ender]

I’ve distorted nothing. Your word, your characterisation of the statement in the Catechism, in post #287 was “personal” - a personal statement. I say it is a conclusion reached by the Church. Deal with the concept.

Opposition to the use of capital punishment is a preference. That is the term used by the church herself. Preferences are clearly not doctrines, and it is hard to see them as anything other than personal choices. That is simply what the word means: the choice of one thing over another. If you have an understanding of preference that means something else I should like to hear it.

It is not helpful to use the word personal to imply I am suggesting it means no more than a personal preference for chocolate over vanilla. The belief that one approach is better than another is very much a personal decision, however deeply held the belief or advisedly one makes the choice.

Ender

 

[Rau]

Opposition to the use of capital punishment is a preference. That is the term used by the church herself. Preferences are clearly not doctrines, and it is hard to see them as anything other than personal choices. That is simply what the word means: the choice of one thing over another. If you have an understanding of preference that means something else I should like to hear it.

It is not helpful to use the word personal to imply I am suggesting it means no more than a personal preference for chocolate over vanilla. The belief that one approach is better than another is very much a personal decision, however deeply held the belief or advisedly one makes the choice.

Ender

Again you are back to doctrine or not. I reiterate that the issue we speak of is a key tenet of the Church’s position on CP. I know that fact irks you - but it is what it is.

 

[LongingSoul]

Opposition to the use of capital punishment is a preference. That is the term used by the church herself. Preferences are clearly not doctrines, and it is hard to see them as anything other than personal choices. That is simply what the word means: the choice of one thing over another. If you have an understanding of preference that means something else I should like to hear it.

Ender

The doctrine is that public authorities have the right to resort to a death sentence under specific conditions. That’s the doctrine. That means that under certain conditions using death is forbidden to the public authorities. The Church is saying that those certain conditions are no present so as per doctrine, death should not be resorted to in penal sentencing. There’s no ambiguity in what the position of the Church is because she clearly articulates it in the rest of paragraph 405 that you ignore…

The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”.[836] 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.

The Church is clearly affirming that the conditions which allow for capital punishment are practically non-existent. Humanity is making a moral choice in abandoning it which accords perfectly with the doctrine of the Church.