Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[Ender]

So…to you dudleysharp and all who prefer to quote the position of earlier Popes, or Aquinas — are you all saying then that the current Catechism of the Catholic Church is wrong? (On CC2267)

Yes. It conflicts with what the Church has consistently taught since Augustine and it even conflicts with itself. I see no way to simultaneously agree with what 2267 says as well as what is said in 2260 and 2266.

And if you believe that it wrong on this… is the CC wrong on anything else?

No.

To what to you attribute this ‘error’ in the CC?

It is the personal opinion of JPII and opinions, even of Popes, are not protected from error.

If this is an ‘error’ - is the Church still the repository of truth?

Yes, as 2267 is a prudential opinion and not a Church doctrine.

I value the teaching of the Church, as you do - however I see the possibility that the position of the Church, as reflected in the Catechism has developed beyond that of 1957 - given the other changes in our world.

“Developed” is not the right word to describe the change introduced by 2267. It is nearly a complete reversal of what the Church has taught. As a member of a Church which teaches that morality does not change with time you are very comfortable with the idea that an entirely new concept of the morality of capital punishment should just appear literally out of the blue in 1995.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

So…to you dudleysharp and all who prefer to quote the position of earlier Popes, or Aquinas — are you all saying then that the current Catechism of the Catholic Church is wrong? (On CC2267)

 

[4elise]

Yes. It conflicts with what the Church has consistently taught since Augustine and it even conflicts with itself. I see no way to simultaneously agree with what 2267 says as well as what is said in 2260 and 2266.
No.
It is the personal opinion of JPII and opinions, even of Popes, are not protected from error.
Yes, as 2267 is a prudential opinion and not a Church doctrine.
“Developed” is not the right word to describe the change introduced by 2267. It is nearly a complete reversal of what the Church has taught. As a member of a Church which teaches that morality does not change with time you are very comfortable with the idea that an entirely new concept of the morality of capital punishment should just appear literally out of the blue in 1995.

Ender

I have learned a great deal during our discussions - I’ve done a lot of reading on this since we began…

1. I do understand the issues that cause you to believe that the 1995 CC is in error in 2267.
2. However, I believe when read in order and in totality 2267 is more than the prudential opinion of Pope JP II - but the application of the teaching of the Church on punishments given the ability of the State to protect society.
3. Our discussion have confirmed my belief that it is consistent with the teaching of the Church to advocate for an end to capitol punishment - and I am glad to find the following information on the USCCB web site: The Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty.

A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
"Ending the death penalty would be one important step away from a culture of death and toward building a culture of life.”
A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2005

usccb.org/deathpenalty/

usccb.org/deathpenalty/video-full.shtml

“The Culture of Life”
A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death stands as a call for the nation to abandon the use of the death penalty and move one step closer to building a culture of life. People like Bud Welch whose daughter died in the Oklahoma City bombing and David Kaczynski, brother of the Unibomber, are some of the voices that have joined with the bishops in this campaign to end the use of death penalty. The stories and narrative highlight the flaws in the death penalty and movingly advocate that Catholics oppose the death penalty in order to build a culture of life.

 

[Ender]

Our discussion have confirmed my belief that it is consistent with the teaching of the Church to advocate for an end to capitol punishment - and I am glad to find the following information on the USCCB web site: The Catholic Campaign to End the Use of the Death Penalty.

There is another section of the USCCB document A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death you didn’t cite that is relevant to this discussion:

*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. *

Even the USCCB cannot bring itself to claim that 2267 is doctrine, otherwise they would never have said that they “*offer neither judgment nor condemnation” *about those who disagree with it. I have never disputed that the current Church hierarchy opposes the death penalty, only that their opposition is not based on doctrine.

Ender

 

[severus68]

There is another section of the USCCB document A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death you didn’t cite that is relevant to this discussion:

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.

Even the USCCB cannot bring itself to claim that 2267 is doctrine, otherwise they would never have said that they “*offer neither judgment nor condemnation” *about those who disagree with it. I have never disputed that the current Church hierarchy opposes the death penalty, only that their opposition is not based on doctrine.

Ender

It says “we hope may lead ti re-examination and conversion”. Conversion obviously to what is stated in the Cathechism.

If the Church hierarchy does not base its position on doctrine as you say, what then does it base its position on ? Do we then decide for ourselves whether what the Church says on any matter is based on doctrine or not and pick and choose?

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Are there 2 Gods? One in the Old Testament - vengeance and bloodshed, and one in the New Testament - redemption and mercy?
The death sentence saves the tax payer a lot of money - it’s very utilitarian.

 

[4elise]

Are there 2 Gods? One in the Old Testament - vengeance and bloodshed, and one in the New Testament - redemption and mercy?
The death sentence saves the tax payer a lot of money - it’s very utilitarian.

While I don’t think Catholics put a price on LIFE - I also understand the financial issue actually - the inverse is true.

deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty#FromDPIC

USA
Death Penalty Trials Very Costly Relative to County Budgets

Capital cases burden county budgets with large unexpected costs, according to a report released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, “The Budgetary Repercussions of Capital Convictions,” by Katherine Baicker. Counties manage these high costs by decreasing funding for highways and police and by increasing taxes. The report estimates that between 1982-1997 the extra cost of capital trials was $1.6 billion. (NBER Working Paper No. w8382, Issued in July 2001) Read the abstract.

 

[Ender]

It says “we hope may lead ti re-examination and conversion”. Conversion obviously to what is stated in the Cathechism.

Clearly the bishops are hoping that people will come to accept their position and oppose capital punishment but you cannot seriously believe that bishops would present Catholic doctrine with the statement that they “hope” people will come to accept it. Doctrine requires assent; it is not optional. This position is not being presented as doctrine for the very good reason that it isn’t.

If the Church hierarchy does not base its position on doctrine as you say, what then does it base its position on ?

In this case it is primarily the prudential opinion of JPII.

Do we then decide for ourselves whether what the Church says on any matter is based on doctrine or not and pick and choose?

No, at least I certainly don’t. If you’ll go to post number 400, however, you will find that a lot of people within the Church believe that 2267 is not doctrine and I haven’t seen even one person within the Church claim that it is.

Ender

 

[4elise]

Clearly the bishops are hoping that people will come to accept their position and oppose capital punishment but you cannot seriously believe that bishops would present Catholic doctrine with the statement that they “hope” people will come to accept it. Doctrine requires assent; it is not optional. This position is not being presented as doctrine for the very good reason that it isn’t.

Is it just me or does this seem like splitting hairs? The Bishops ‘hope’ people will come to accept the position of opposing capital punishment - if people accept that position they are in assent - they agree. This is the position that the Bishops (some people in the Church) are hoping - wanting - people to come to…

In this case it is primarily the prudential opinion of JPII.
No, at least I certainly don’t. If you’ll go to post number 400, however, you will find that a lot of people within the Church believe that 2267 is not doctrine and I haven’t seen even one person within the Church claim that it is.

 

[distracted]

You are correct. The Catechism has major problems with Genesis, among others’.

.

haven’t read all posts so this may be repetitious…

***the Catechism doesn’t have major problems with anything. It is the Catholic teachings and those are from God…

God does not establish a Church that can teach error (officially)

at least my God doesn’t***…

 

[Ender]

Is it just me or does this seem like splitting hairs? The Bishops ‘hope’ people will come to accept the position of opposing capital punishment - if people accept that position they are in assent - they agree. This is the position that the Bishops (some people in the Church) are hoping - wanting - people to come to…

It is not splitting hairs to say both that the bishops hope people will oppose the death penalty and that such opposition is not doctrinally based. This is precisely the distinction that allows Catholics to hold a “legitimate diversity of opinion” on the subject.

A lot of people within the Church believe that 2267 reflects the correct position of the Catholic Church (doctrine or not doctrine???) as it relates to capitol punishment, ***the USCCB for example. ***

If it is not doctrine I’m not sure that it can be called the position of the Catholic Church despite the fact that it is the personal position of most of her bishops.

The spirit of this is wanting to create A Culture of Life!

Yes it is, just as the goal of the Great Society was the elimination of poverty. It should be obvious that just because we intend good is no guarantee that our choices will attain it. If anything, I believe that opposition to the death penalty has been harmful to creating just such a culture.

Ender

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

haven’t read all posts so this may be repetitious…

***the Catechism doesn’t have major problems with anything. It is the Catholic teachings and those are from God…

God does not establish a Church that can teach error (officially)

at least my God doesn’t***…

The Catholic Church is Infallible.
Who told me?
The Catholic Church.

 

[Brendan]

the way he died was relatively painless, particularly compared to those who were his victims…

therefore he probably has a long stay in Purgatory ahead of him…

God knows but this is according to my best info abot what the Church teaches and also seems logical…

The Church teaches that expiation of temporal punishment occurs when the just punishment due to a crime is willfully accepted.

That removes the Purgation due to the crime.

 

[Ender]

The Church teaches that expiation of temporal punishment occurs when the just punishment due to a crime is willfully accepted.

That removes the Purgation due to the crime.

Can you cite something that confirms this? It seems reasonable but I have not encountered this specific claim before.

Ender