Catholics view on Death Penalty

[Ray_Scheel]

I was talking about here in the United States where it should not take place… Since it does not do any good as far as I know.

There is some truth to this in that the deterrence effect of the death penalty has been proven to fade if the execution date is delayed too far (more than a few years) from sentencing. But when the legal process is running relatively smoothly, where executions for crimes take place while the peers of the condemned are still running loose and it is known that a death sentence really does mean the end is near, there is a marked impact in deterring capital crime.

 

[Ender]

marci:

My understanding is that at this time the teaching on the DP is not dogma and therefore we are free to develop our own opinion.

Not exactly; it’s more complicated than that. We are required to assent to dogma and are expected to assent to doctrine. In this particular case, JPII’s comments on the death penalty (which is the basis for 2267) is neither, it is his prudential judgment and on this we are free to form our own opinion, although we are to give his statements serious consideration.

2266 …
2267 …

These two sections reveal the problem the new teaching on the death penalty has created. 2266 represents doctrine as the Church has taught it for centuries; the most significant point being an explanation of the purpose of punishment: “to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” This is why the degree of punishment must be “commensurate with the gravity of the crime.” That is, the disorder caused by the sin can only be repaired by a punishment comparable to the seriousness of the sin. Don’t assume this is merely eye for an eye revenge; this is the Church’s view of the nature of sin and punishment.

The problem with 2267 is more with what it doesn’t say than with what it does - it ignores what was just presented in 2266 about the primary purpose of punishment and claims the only justification for the death penalty is if it is necessary to protect the public. Public protection is one of the four purposes of punishment but it is not the most important one, as was just explained in 2266. 2267 completely ignores the concept of justice: if a punishment is not just it may not be imposed no matter how well it protects the public. As I said in an earlier post, if protection was the only concern we could send prisoners to Devil’s Island. That we don’t is not because it wouldn’t be effective but because it wouldn’t be just.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Not exactly; it’s more complicated than that. We are required to assent to dogma and are expected to assent to doctrine. In this particular case, JPII’s comments on the death penalty (which is the basis for 2267) is neither, it is his prudential judgment and on this we are free to form our own opinion, although we are to give his statements serious consideration…

The issue of when the criteria are met* is certainly prudential judgment. The issue of if the catechism is prudential judgment is not. If you have anything from the Magisterium to call the catechism prudential judgment please post such.

*guilt and imminent danger

 

[Ray_Scheel]

The issue of when the criteria are met* is certainly prudential judgment. The issue of if the catechism is prudential judgment is not.

*guilt and imminent danger

Even just specifying “imminent danger” as a required criterion for exercising the Death Penalty is a prudential judgment within the authority of the State to decide under the Catholic teachings about Natural Law. It is improper to use a selective interpretation of a subset (your fixation on “Natural Moral Law”) to invalidate what is taught in the larger set. The interpretations must be made within the full context of Natural Law, not just what one wants to portray based on a subset.

As far as your stock routine about “the catechism” as a whole being prudential that you keep introducing as a radical expansion to discussing the context of 2267, that seems to be the same kind of disruption technique as arguing with the dictionary. No one but you is claiming/implying that the whole catechism has to be prudential if any one part is, thus no one is obliged to provide the proof to that effect which you keep demanding. That is a false dichotomy you have never defended your reasons for insisting must be. By all accounts even you have no interest in the claim beyond its utility as one of your several crumbling soapboxes from which you try to speak down to the other thread participants.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Even just specifying “imminent danger” as a required criterion for exercising the Death Penalty is a prudential judgment within the authority of the State to decide under the Catholic teachings about Natural Law. It is improper to use a selective interpretation of a subset (your fixation on “Natural Moral Law”) to invalidate what is taught in the larger set. The interpretations must be made within the full context of Natural Law, not just what one wants to portray based on a subset.

As far as your stock routine about “the catechism” as a whole being prudential that you keep introducing as a radical expansion to discussing the context of 2267, that seems to be the same kind of disruption technique as arguing with the dictionary. No one but you is claiming/implying that the whole catechism has to be prudential if any one part is, thus no one is obliged to provide the proof to that effect which you keep demanding. That is a false dichotomy you have never defended your reasons for insisting must be. By all accounts even you have no interest in the claim beyond its utility as one of your several crumbling soapboxes from which you try to speak down to the other thread participants.

Again just pronouns offered as substitutes for facts, and again listed as thought the state has some special grant which it does not have. The prudential judgment is the responsibility of the party considering the capital punishment. The catechism doesn’t reverse this responsibility to states, nor ban it from individuals or groups. The absences of Church references are simply being replaced by pronouns and personal attacks. Ludicrous statements are not judged by who makes them first but rather on their content. WHEN I was at uneasy with my job I looked at myself and my job and then changed one.

 

[Ender]

The issue of when the criteria are met* is certainly prudential judgment. The issue of if the catechism is prudential judgment is not. If you have anything from the Magisterium to call the catechism prudential judgment please post such.

Let’s be clear: I have not called the catechism prudential. Section 2267 is based exclusively on the words of JPII in his encyclical Evangelium vitae. This is what I have called prudential.

The USCCB in their 2005 letter *A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death *wrote: *“The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in working to end the use of the death penalty.” *

It is inconceivable that the bishops would make such a statement about any Church doctrine. It only makes sense is if the Church’s statements on the death penalty are prudential.

In his 2001 article Catholicism and Capital Punishment, Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote: *"**The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.

• 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."

I think the argument that 2267 is a prudential opinion is pretty settled.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Let’s be clear: I have not called the catechism prudential. Section 2267 is based exclusively on the words of JPII in his encyclical Evangelium vitae. This is what I have called prudential.

The USCCB in their 2005 letter *A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death *wrote: *“The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in working to end the use of the death penalty.” *

It is inconceivable that the bishops would make such a statement about any Church doctrine. It only makes sense is if the Church’s statements on the death penalty are prudential.

In his 2001 article Catholicism and Capital Punishment, Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote: *"*The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.

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."

I think the argument that 2267 is a prudential opinion is pretty settled.

Ender

Thank you
However 2267 is part of the catechism and is not prudential. If one attempted to use the catechism to judge the faith of a convicted criminal a direct interpretation cannot be achieved. The catechism is clear we must be sure of the guilty and we must be unable to provide a reasonable alternative. So what constitutes the guilty standard, and who judges? and what constitutes reasonable alternatives, and who judges? These are the prudential judgments which must be made. Similarly the statements made about capital punishment in the US were not based on a detailed review of each so the prudential judgment was based on obvious resources and public information. Have you considered what would be the result of the Pontiff and Magisterium jointly declaring the actions of the US Government immoral?

 

[pnewton]

Similarly the statements made about capital punishment in the US were not based on a detailed review of each so the prudential judgment was based on obvious resources and public information.

I know and this is why I the Church must be careful against crossing over into scientific opinion and professional opinion outside of faith and morals. What is considered obvious obvious resources and public information too often is filtered through a media system that is not very reliable.

 

[Ender]

2267 is part of the catechism and is not prudential.

Restating your opinion with no justification to support it and no rebuttal of my arguments doesn’t really constitute much of an argument. I recognize that a lot of people disagree with my position but at no point have I given any opinion without citing a Church document on which to base it. More than that, I am not just expressing my own opinion; I am using the opinions of those who should be taken seriously on the subject: popes, bishops, and doctors of the Church.

The real differences here are not between you and me but between your understanding of the subject and the Church’s. Basically you have one document you can cite to support your position: section 2267 of the catechism (and that part of Evangelium vitae which it references). I have everything the Church has written prior to that.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Restating your opinion with no justification to support it and no rebuttal of my arguments doesn’t really constitute much of an argument. I recognize that a lot of people disagree with my position but at no point have I given any opinion without citing a Church document on which to base it. More than that, I am not just expressing my own opinion; I am using the opinions of those who should be taken seriously on the subject: popes, bishops, and doctors of the Church.

The real differences here are not between you and me but between your understanding of the subject and the Church’s. Basically you have one document you can cite to support your position: section 2267 of the catechism (and that part of Evangelium vitae which it references). I have everything the Church has written prior to that.

Ender

I think you are clearly misinterpreting what the Pope, Bishops, and Magisterium are saying with the exception of Cardinal Dulles, and maybe a few others speaking individually on the CP subject. When a document from the Church calls the catechism prudential judgment teachings I’ll line up to apologize. Until then I follow the catechism. Thanks for sharing your opinion

 

[Ender]

I think you are clearly misinterpreting what the Pope, Bishops, and Magisterium are saying with the exception of Cardinal Dulles, and maybe a few others speaking individually on the CP subject.

You ignored the document from the USCCB where they stated that they offer “neither judgment nor condemnation” for those who disagree with the Church regarding the death penalty. Clearly such a statement would be a dereliction of their duty as our moral leaders if they were unwilling to condemn actions counter to Church doctrine.

When a document from the Church calls the catechism prudential judgment teachings I’ll line up to apologize.

I don’t expect you to change your mind but I have a right to expect you not to distort my comments. I was very clear in my last post that I have not called the catechism prudential; my comments were directed exclusively at section 2267.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You ignored the document from the USCCB where they stated that they offer “neither judgment nor condemnation” for those who disagree with the Church

could you such a paper? In a paper stating “Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in* working to end the use of the death penalty**.*” they state "In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation" however that was in regard to death penalty supporters not the church and did not indicate it includes those who oppose the church standards. Maybe you read another paper? Maybe this one usccb.org/sdwp/national/deathpenalty/ or this one catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0700736.htm
or this one priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/penaltyofdeath.pdf the problem is all these call for ending the death penalty

regarding the death penalty. Clearly such a statement would be a dereliction of their duty as our moral leaders if they were unwilling to condemn actions counter to Church doctrine.
I don’t expect you to change your mind but I have a right to expect you not to distort my comments. I was very clear in my last post that I have not called the catechism prudential; my comments were directed exclusively at section 2267.

Ender

2267 is catechism, and it really is that simple

 

[Ender]

the problem is all these call for ending the death penalty

I have never said nor implied that the bishops of the USCCB or Cardinal Dulles don’t support the abolition of the death penalty. In the documents I cited they all explicitly oppose capital punishment (two of your three references are to the same USCCB document I cited). The point is that even though the USCCB and Cardinal Dulles oppose the death penalty they also made it clear that a Catholic is not obliged to agree with them. Since we are obliged to assent to doctrine, any teaching to which we are not obliged to assent cannot be doctrine; it can at most be prudential.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have never said nor implied that the bishops of the USCCB or Cardinal Dulles don’t support the abolition of the death penalty. In the documents I cited they all explicitly oppose capital punishment (two of your three references are to the same USCCB document I cited). The point is that even though the USCCB and Cardinal Dulles oppose the death penalty they also made it clear that a Catholic is not obliged to agree with them

in regard to abolishing the death penalty you are correct

Since we are obliged to assent to doctrine, any teaching to which we are not obliged to assent cannot be doctrine; it can at most be prudential.

are you referring to their paper? The paper is not released by the Magisterium, catechism 2267 is releases by the Magisterium. The paper is not binding the catechism including 2267 is. Again if you disagree post something from the Church.

Christian Doctrine
Taken in the sense of “the act of teaching” and “the knowledge imparted by teaching”, this term is synonymous with CATECHESIS and CATECHISM-newadvent.org/cathen/05075b.htm

 

[pnewton]

they state "In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation" however that was in regard to death penalty supporters not the church and did not indicate it includes those who oppose the church standards. Maybe you read another paper?

The problem that I had when this first came out, it is presented no new infomation. It reiterated the same error that I know to be false. There are some who kill who can not be safely incarcerated for life. They will remain a danger to others. Perhaps there is one sense in which I can agree to work for the end of the death penalty. I would be willing to repeal the eight amendment clause of forbidding cruel an unusual punishment so that all the case law built around it could become moot. Only then will the possibility of exist that this myth become a reality.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I don’t expect you to change your mind but I have a right to expect you not to distort my comments. I was very clear in my last post that I have not called the catechism prudential; my comments were directed exclusively at section 2267.

After his as not yet retracted bit where he argued against the definitions in the dictionary, and considering how frequently he has retreated to using that particular misrepresentation directed against every single poster who has raised issues with 2267, it is becoming steadily more compelling to suspect that he may have some compulsion that interferes with his ability to restrain himself from twisting things around in that way, and thus that it is pointless to try to reason this out with him.