capital punishment

[GEddie]

These same folks(including me) say that they can’t afford it while purchasing coffee at Starbuck, getting a 32 inch t.v. going to a football game etc. I remember being told by a relative that they couldn’t afford another child but they flew to Texas for a football game. Yeah I know that is a whole lot cheaper than raising a child for twenty years but I still thought it was hypocritical.

Not really.

As you point out, the amount is a lot less.

The TX journey came out of one year’s fun budget, probably that years’ vacation. Having a child is a whole-life decision.

And “affording a child” might not just be in raw money, but in stress, living space requirements, wear and tear on their bodies, etc.

I don’t know these folks but calling them hypocritical seems a bit much.

Charitable giving vs. Starbucks is a wee-bit more symmetrical. There is no large minimum in charitable giving.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ender]

Actually, the Catechism claims it to be quite a bit older Ender, for it says:"… 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."

It is true that this claim is made. It is the claim itself that appears to be inaccurate. I am not aware of a single document that actually contains this restriction.

I’ve agreed previously Ender that what you extract above is prudential. It is also evidently prudential to decide whether the case at hand** is or is not one where we need to kill to protect society.**

The assertion that capital punishment should be used only when needed to protect society is not a doctrinal requirement. Clearly the determination of whether the prisoner represents a future threat to society is a judgment, but so is the assertion that this is the only thing that justifies capital punishment.

But what is presented as rather more than prudential is the following statement:"If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."

Fr. Petri addressed this as well by pointing out that protection is not the primary objective of punishment, and it is the primary objective that determines the extent of the punishment, not a secondary one.

The Catechism is saying - make your judgement about whether or not we need it for protection, and if it is not so needed, then do not use it.

And Fr Petri (and Cdl Dulles et al) are pointing out that this is a judgment, not a new doctrine.…the Church’s tradition and its magisterial teaching, which is unchanged by Pope Saint John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis…
Ender

 

[adrift]

It is true that this claim is made. It is the claim itself that appears to be inaccurate. I am not aware of a single document that actually contains this restriction.

I disagree with you and Rau that the Catechism is making this claim as I have stated in a previous post.

The way I would interpret it is Despite the traditional teaching the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty. I don’t believe it was meant that (if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor)
to be part of the traditional teaching. I think that is why there are commas.

 

[Ender]

I disagree with you and Rau that the Catechism is making this claim as I have stated in a previous post.

The way I would interpret it is Despite the traditional teaching the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty. I don’t believe it was meant that (if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor)
to be part of the traditional teaching. I think that is why there are commas.

This is how the traditional teaching of the church was explained in the 1992 version of the new catechism.The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. (2066)
The 1997 version contained the clause…when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
These are two different statements about what the traditional teaching of the church in fact was. The past is not subject to change so both the 1992 and 1997 versions cannot be accurate inasmuch as they are different.

Here is the explanation given by Kevin L. Flannery S.J. (Pontifical Gregorian Univ., Rome)*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. *
You are right to believe that this restriction is not part of the traditional teaching, but that is what is alleged in 2267 (1997 version). There is simply no evidence that this claim is true.

Ender

 

[Rau]

I disagree with you and Rau that the Catechism is making this claim as I have stated in a previous post.

The way I would interpret it is Despite the traditional teaching the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty. I don’t believe it was meant that (if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor)
to be part of the traditional teaching. I think that is why there are commas.

That would be a triumph of flexibility in interpreting English grammar! You have simply decided that the if clause “isn’t really there”!

 

[Rau]

This is how the traditional teaching of the church was explained in the 1992 version of the new catechism.The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. (2066)
The 1997 version contained the clause…when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
These are two different statements about what the traditional teaching of the church in fact was. The past is not subject to change so both the 1992 and 1997 versions cannot be accurate inasmuch as they are different.

Here is the explanation given by Kevin L. Flannery S.J. (Pontifical Gregorian Univ., Rome)*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. *
You are right to believe that this restriction is not part of the traditional teaching, but that is what is alleged in 2267 (1997 version). There is simply no evidence that this claim is true.

Ender

So, in summary, you believe:

• the Catechism states a falsehood
• the “instructional statement” I quoted should be understood to be qualified to explain that it is really just an opinion.

And despite this, we are to view the Catechism as a sure statement of catholic doctrine? How can such “incompetence” in fact and expression stand in the primary doctrinal communication of the Church, for nearly 18 years?

 

[adrift]

That would be a triumph of flexibility in interpreting English grammar! You have simply decided that the if clause “isn’t really there”!

No that is not the case. The fact that the if is there makes it wide open. What I was saying is that I see another way of stating it is:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, (Despite) the traditional teaching of the Church it does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

This is what I believe what was done to the teaching. I see this as the underlying statement. I am sure you don’t agree but I do believe that there is an attempt to change the teaching as much as possible without saying it is intrinsically wrong. I don’t believe that the Pope’s are uncomfortable with the fact that it is a traditional teaching.

 

[adrift]

So, in summary, you believe:

• the Catechism states a falsehood
• the “instructional statement” I quoted should be understood to be qualified to explain that it is really just an opinion.

And despite this, we are to view the Catechism as a sure statement of catholic doctrine? How can such “incompetence” in fact and expression stand in the primary doctrinal communication of the Church, for nearly 18 years?

The Catechism does not document sources for the tradition. Do you have documentation of what the Church has taught in the past that supports the Catechism? To restate I don’t think there is a problem because I don’t read it the same as you two do. I see the Catechism stating that the state having the right to execute and nothing more.

 

[Rau]

No that is not the case. The fact that the if is there makes it wide open. What I was saying is that I see another way of stating it is:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, (Despite) the traditional teaching of the Church it does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

This is what I believe what was done to the teaching. I see this as the underlying statement. I am sure you don’t agree but I do believe that there is an attempt to change the teaching as much as possible without saying it is intrinsically wrong. I don’t believe that the Pope’s are uncomfortable with the fact that it is a traditional teaching.

Could you please explain how the presence of the “if clause” alters the meaning of the sentence? Here is the sentence in question:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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.

I Assume you are not saying that the sentence with and without the “if clause” are indistinguishable as to meaning?

 

[Rau]

The Catechism does not document sources for the tradition. Do you have documentation of what the Church has taught in the past that supports the Catechism?

We can assume the book is correct, or that it is wrong.

If it is wrong, we need to we need to consider the following: If a falsehood has stood for 18 years, we should be concerned. How many Bishops reviewed the Catechism in drafting and did not object? How many can be assumed to be ignorant of the traditional Church teaching on the issue and how many are accessories to the expressing of falsehood? All the Bishops of the world have seen the published result. How many have called attention to the (alleged) error, taken the matter up with the Pope, and what’s been done about that? 18 years in print.

 

[adrift]

We can assume the book is correct, or that it is wrong.

If it is wrong, we need to we need to consider the following: If a falsehood has stood for 18 years, we should be concerned. How many Bishops reviewed the Catechism in drafting and did not object? How many can be assumed to be ignorant of the traditional Church teaching on the issue and how many are accessories to the expressing of falsehood? All the Bishops of the world have seen the published result. How many have called attention to the (alleged) error, taken the matter up with the Pope, and what’s been done about that? 18 years in print.

There is a third assumption, that is you are misreading the Catechism.
I have no doubt that the book is correct. If your reading is correct, then there has to be evidence of it. The Catechism only cites Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae. It only states that

if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

. It does not state that this was a traditional teaching but it indicates that this is the Pope’s opinion, which should not be dismissed lightly. In fact, it is presumptuous to dismiss it all. But then that is not why I discuss this as I accept that teaching but I also accept that it is acceptable to have a differing opinion. I do believe that it is a misreading to believe that the entire paragraph is meant to be the traditional teaching. Since is it permissible to disagree with this, then it really doesn’t matter. As for your statement of why didn’t the Bishops didn’t call attention to it? I have two thought on it.

1. Read the way I read it why would they?
2. Maybe it didn’t occur to them. They read only the main points without bothering with what you perceive as being inaccurate. I realize you don’t think it is inaccurate but if it was than it might not have occurred to them. How often do you think that they have read the Catechism in the last 18 years in print. I wonder how many have really read it. I am surprised by many priest who haven’t read certain current documents.

I would like to see citations that what you claim the Catechism says is accurate. Stating the Bishops said nothing is not an answer. I want to make it clear, I am not challenging you but asking for help.

One more thought. The Catechism was revised at least twice maybe it needs one more time.

 

[Rau]

There is a third assumption, that is you are misreading the Catechism.
I have no doubt that the book is correct. If your reading is correct, then there has to be evidence of it. The Catechism only cites Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae. It only states that . It does not state that this was a traditional teaching but it indicates that this is the Pope’s opinion, which should not be dismissed lightly. In fact, it is presumptuous to dismiss it all. But then that is not why I discuss this as I accept that teaching but I also accept that it is acceptable to have a differing opinion. I do believe that it is a misreading to believe that the entire paragraph is meant to be the traditional teaching. Since is it permissible to disagree with this, then it really doesn’t matter. As for your statement of why didn’t the Bishops didn’t call attention to it? I have two thought on it.

1. Read the way I read it why would they?
2. Maybe it didn’t occur to them. They read only the main points without bothering with what you perceive as being inaccurate. I realize you don’t think it is inaccurate but if it was than it might not have occurred to them. How often do you think that they have read the Catechism in the last 18 years in print. I wonder how many have really read it. I am surprised by many priest who haven’t read certain current documents.

I would like to see citations that what you claim the Catechism says is accurate. Stating the Bishops said nothing is not an answer. I want to make it clear, I am not challenging you but asking for help.

I neither defend nor criticize the accuracy of the statements. How would I know the traditional teaching - I am no scholar. I simply read them at face value. Ender and I agree what the sentence means. You claim another interpretation. You’ve not explained it, and despite searching I cannot see another way to read the words. Please respond to post #169.

 

[LongingSoul]

There is a third assumption, that is you are misreading the Catechism.
I have no doubt that the book is correct. If your reading is correct, then there has to be evidence of it. The Catechism only cites Pope John Paul II Evangelium Vitae. It only states that . It does not state that this was a traditional teaching but it indicates that this is the Pope’s opinion, which should not be dismissed lightly. In fact, it is presumptuous to dismiss it all. But then that is not why I discuss this as I accept that teaching but I also accept that it is acceptable to have a differing opinion. I do believe that it is a misreading to believe that the entire paragraph is meant to be the traditional teaching. Since is it permissible to disagree with this, then it really doesn’t matter. As for your statement of why didn’t the Bishops didn’t call attention to it? I have two thought on it.

1. Read the way I read it why would they?
2. Maybe it didn’t occur to them. They read only the main points without bothering with what you perceive as being inaccurate. I realize you don’t think it is inaccurate but if it was than it might not have occurred to them. How often do you think that they have read the Catechism in the last 18 years in print. I wonder how many have really read it. I am surprised by many priest who haven’t read certain current documents.

I would like to see citations that what you claim the Catechism says is accurate. Stating the Bishops said nothing is not an answer. I want to make it clear, I am not challenging you but asking for help.

One more thought. The Catechism was revised at least twice maybe it needs one more time.

When you read something with a strong bias the way you are… it can obscure the obvious fullness of what you are reading.

So when you read the statement… “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.”… you are scrambling to explain a rupture in doctrine based on a belief that the death penalty is a divine necessity and suddenly that is being undermined by adding a condition.

What’s more accurate is that the traditional teaching of the Church allows for death as a human punishment **when the law warrants it **(the law being the guardian of the common good).

That condition is intrinsic to the doctrine since the dawn of Catholic teaching.

What we are experiencing in our day, is a rejection of the death penalty, as offensive to the common good. It’s disappeared in pretty much all western/Christian countries apart from the United States and it is due to the disordered devotion to it has warranted a strong Papal reformulation of the doctrine to stress the necessary condition of using the death penalty. The condition that was always implicit to the doctrine.

 

[adrift]

Could you please explain how the presence of the “if clause” alters the meaning of the sentence? Here is the sentence in question:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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.

I Assume you are not saying that the sentence with and without the “if clause” are indistinguishable as to meaning?

Sorry I missed this thank you for bringing it to my attention.

If is usually coupled with then. If x is true then y happens. When if is used certain criteria must by met. If it is the only way then it may be used. But it doesn’t answer the question who decides? The other if statement , If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Again who decides their sufficiency? I happen to believe that there are cases that they are not sufficient. I am allowed to believe that way.
It is debatable, as these many thread prove, that the criteria is met.

 

[adrift]

I neither defend nor criticize the accuracy of the statements. How would I know the traditional teaching - I am no scholar. I simply read them at face value. Ender and I agree what the sentence means. You claim another interpretation. You’ve not explained it, and despite searching I cannot see another way to read the words. Please respond to post #169.

I could of sworn that I did explain it. Going back to look at my post

What it is stating as the traditional teaching is that the death penalty may be used and nothing more that is why there are commas

I do believe that it is a misreading to believe that the entire paragraph is meant to be the traditional teaching.

I guess I am in your boat now when you said that what you state was clear obviously my explanation wasn’t clear to you.

One more try

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined

This is for all intent an if statement If the guilty party is determined

, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty,

acknowledgment that the Church does not forbid the death penalty

if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

We have an if here which both an if statement and a then statement. The if is a restatement of what is said previously.
If it is the only possible way, then the “this” is understood to be the death penalty
Which also completes the above if statement.

The statement about the traditional teaching does not refer to either if then statements. I would think that if the Catechism meant for the whole statement to refer to traditional teachings they would cite it with something else than Evangelium Vitae.

 

[Rau]

Sorry I missed this thank you for bringing it to my attention.

If is usually coupled with then. If x is true then y happens. When if is used certain criteria must by met. If it is the only way then it may be used. But it doesn’t answer the question who decides? The other if statement , If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Again who decides their sufficiency? I happen to believe that there are cases that they are not sufficient. I am allowed to believe that way.
It is debatable, as these many thread prove, that the criteria is met.

I asked you to explain the meaning of the “if” clause in 2267. You’ve not addressed that at all! Again:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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.

The “if” cannot stand alone. How is the sentence different with & without this clause?

 

[adrift]

When you read something with a strong bias the way you are… it can obscure the obvious fullness of what you are reading.

The fallacy of ad hominem attack

So when you read the statement… “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.”… you are scrambling to explain a rupture in doctrine based on a belief that the death penalty is a divine necessity and suddenly that is being undermined by adding a condition.

Fallacy of straw man

What’s more accurate is that the traditional teaching of the Church allows for death as a human punishment ]when the law warrants it (the law being the guardian of the common good).

That condition is intrinsic to the doctrine since the dawn of Catholic teaching.

Another straw man

What we are experiencing in our day, is a rejection of the death penalty, as offensive to the common good.

Proof that this is the reason?

It’s disappeared in pretty much all western/Christian countries apart from the United States and it is due to the disordered devotion to it has warranted a strong Papal reformulation of the doctrine to stress the necessary condition of using the death penalty. The condition that was always implicit to the doctrine.

Proof? Reformulation? are you saying that the Church has changed a dogma?

 

[Rau]

…The statement about the traditional teaching does not refer to either if then statements.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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.

Had the traditional teaching never been raised, what would the sentence mean?

The “if clause” absolutely relates to the “traditional teaching” because there is no other statement left for it to qualify!

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, -]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.

You see - it would make no sense.

2267 means:

"The traditional teaching of the Church is that you can use the death penalty if:

• guilty party’s identity and responsibility is known; and
• it’s the only way of effectively defending human lives…"

If you believe otherwise, please carefully craft a plain English grammatically correct sentence(s) that makes your understanding of the meaning clear.

 

[adrift]

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, 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.

Had the traditional teaching never been raised, what would the sentence mean?

The “if clause” absolutely relates to the “traditional teaching” because there is no other statement left for it to qualify!

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, -]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.

You see - it would make no sense.

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined 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.

2267 means:

"The traditional teaching of the Church is that you can use the death penalty if:

• guilty party’s identity and responsibility is known; and
• it’s the only way of effectively defending human lives…"

If you believe otherwise, please carefully craft a plain English grammatically correct sentence(s) that makes your understanding of the meaning clear.

You have already stated that you cannot cite evidence that this is what the traditional teaching meant.

I have already stated that this is found in Evangelium Vitae but no other citing is made which indicates to me that it is not part of tradition.

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined 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.

 

[Rau]

…Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined 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.

Excellent. That accords with my expression in post #xxx