Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[Ender]

The post was #69 in which I explained what I see as the difference.

In #69 you merely categorize the three parts of 2267; you don’t so much as recognize the existence of 2266 let alone explain how it relates to 2267.

Yes, it does simply my position, as well as that of all Catholics. That is why we have a Magisterium, to which we should all be faithtul to.

I am at a loss about how to respond to someone who is willing to simply dismiss as irrelevant everything the Church has ever said prior to the 1997 Catechism, nor can I understand how it is that we should be faithful to our Magisterium - just as those who went before us were to be faithful to theirs - when “ours” and “theirs” say different things. Indeed, the whole concept of “ours” and “theirs” doesn’t give one much faith in the constancy of the … faith.

And no, there are many things the Church has learned and developed since the Middle Ages…

“Developed” is an interesting concept as there are no hints about what the new teaching on capital punishment developed from; there are quite literally zero refrences in either 2267 or (the relevant section of) Evangelium Vitae to anything the Church had previously said on the subject.

Individual Catholics should not presume to be a Magisterium unto themselves, engaging in a form of sola tradition.

Without a doubt I am presumptuous, not to mention grumpy and ill tempered … and I have dandruff. The only appropriate concern, however, is whether I am wrong and that question is not determined by my personal peccadilloes. I am astonished that someone can believe an argument can be rebutted simply by maligning the person who makes it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I personally am conflicted by this dilemma, as I have always been a supporter of the death penalty. However, since I came into the church two years ago, I have been rethinking my position.

In order to understand this issue you need to read more than one section of the Catechism. Do you know, for example, what the primary objective of punishment is? What is it that makes a punishment just? What are the obligations of the state as distinct from the individual? What does the Church teach about punishment, mercy, justice, murder, expiation, forgiveness, and repentance? I was ambivalent about the issue until I started to study it more carefully and although I am not entirely confident that I have reached the right conclusions I am quite sure that section 2267 of the Catechism is a totally inadequate expression of Church teaching on the subject.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I am at a loss about how to respond to someone who is willing to simply dismiss as irrelevant everything the Church has ever said prior to the 1997 Catechism

I do not consider it to be dismissed. Our tradition and heritage is reflected in Church teaching today. I just do not choose to put myself above the Magisterium in understanding how it reflects on the world today.

I have the desire for the use of Capital Punishment as a satisfaction to justice. I wish the Church taught this and believe it to be biblical. However, I refuse to belly up to the cafeteria like so many others. I would rather learn from the Church than try to be its teacher.

 

[Ender]

Our tradition and heritage is reflected in Church teaching today.

This is demonstrably untrue. If they were the same then you wouldn’t have to dismiss the Catechism of Trent because it would say the same as the new Catechism. More accurately, you wouldn’t have to reject one part of the new Catechism in order to accept a different part

I just do not choose to put myself above the Magisterium in understanding how it reflects on the world today.

You keep implying that morality is somehow different today than it was before. You do realize that morality doesn’t change over time, right?

I have the desire for the use of Capital Punishment as a satisfaction to justice. I wish the Church taught this and believe it to be biblical.

Well this should come as good news: it is biblical and the Church does teach it. Today.

However, I refuse to belly up to the cafeteria like so many others. I would rather learn from the Church than try to be its teacher.

I suggested before that you shouldn’t confuse insult with argument. That you keep resorting to unpleasant innuendo is probably the strongest evidence that you have real argument you can use.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

You keep implying that morality is somehow different today than it was before. You do realize that morality doesn’t change over time, right?

Yes. I never said it did.

I suggested before that you shouldn’t confuse insult with argument. That you keep resorting to unpleasant innuendo is probably the strongest evidence that you have real argument you can use.

I have not and will not use insults.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Ender
You continue to confuse personal assumptions with church teaching, where does the church mandate capital punsihment for punishment? Jesus clearly rebuked that in John 8 yet you refuse both Jesus’ action and the church teaching because you insert a personal link.

 

[Ender]

You continue to confuse personal assumptions with church teaching, where does the church mandate capital punsihment for punishment?

If Mr. Newton hadn’t been so quick to dismiss the Catechism of Trent he might have noted the significance of this:

*For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. [Gen 9:6]

“The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.”*

Jesus clearly rebuked that in John 8 yet you refuse both Jesus’ action and the church teaching because you insert a personal link.

The Church does not interpret John 8 the way you do; the interpretation of Genesis 9:6, however, is the Church’s, not mine. Nothing I have said is my own interpretation of anything; I have simply compiled a long list of the writings of popes, cardinals, councils, and doctors of the Church going back over 1700 years. To counter those documents all I am presented with are personal opinions - like your interpretation of John 8 - and a single section of the 1997 Catechism. Everything other than 2267 is simply dismissed as irrelevant.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

If Mr. Newton hadn’t been so quick to dismiss the Catechism of Trent he might have noted the significance of this:

I did not. What I said was:

I do not consider it to be dismissed. Our tradition and heritage is reflected in Church teaching today. I just do not choose to put myself above the Magisterium in understanding how it reflects on the world today.

Likewise Jesus did not dismiss the Old Testament when delivering the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

If Mr. Newton hadn’t been so quick to dismiss the Catechism of Trent he might have noted the significance of this:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. [Gen 9:6]

“The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.”
The Church does not interpret John 8 the way you do; the interpretation of Genesis 9:6, however, is the Church’s, not mine. Nothing I have said is my own interpretation of anything; I have simply compiled a long list of the writings of popes, cardinals, councils, and doctors of the Church going back over 1700 years. To counter those documents all I am presented with are personal opinions - like your interpretation of John 8 - and a single section of the 1997 Catechism. Everything other than 2267 is simply dismissed as irrelevant.

Ender

Ender
You continue to confuse personal assumptions with church teaching, **where does the church mandate capital punsihment for punishment? ** Jesus clearly rebuked that in John 8 yet you refuse both Jesus’ action and the church teaching because you insert a personal link.

Am I missing this in your post or did the church never teach it?

 

[Ender]

Am I missing this in your post or did the church never {mandate capital punishment}?

*For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. [Gen 9:5-6]

In Genesis 9:6 God tells Noah that if one man murders another his life is forfeit (notwithstanding that God did not allow Cain to be killed); not his eternal life but his mortal life at the hands of other men - that is, by the state. The Church has always taught that God meant what he said as the next sentence after the citation of Genesis is this:
*
“The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

*For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. [Gen 9:5-6]

In Genesis 9:6 God tells Noah that if one man murders another his life is forfeit (notwithstanding that God did not allow Cain to be killed); not his eternal life but his mortal life at the hands of other men - that is, by the state. The Church has always taught that God meant what he said as the next sentence after the citation of Genesis is this:
*
“The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

Ender

So was god in error, subservient to the state, rogue, or in heresy? See god also was proactive in preserving Cain’s mortal life by marking him. So god himself did not use capital punishment.

 

[Ender]

So was god in error, subservient to the state, rogue, or in heresy? See god also was proactive in preserving Cain’s mortal life by marking him. So god himself did not use capital punishment.

I make no attempt to interpret scripture on my own; I am not a Protestant. What I wrote were citations of the Church’s interpretation of particular verses that go back at least to the Council of Trent. The Church has no trouble reconciling the fact that God did not allow Cain to be killed and at the same time commanded that murderers be put to death; I am simply repeating Church teaching. You are making an inference from Cain that the Church herself does not make - or do you have a reference to anything the Church has ever said to support your interpretation? How do you explain the citation I just provided? Those are the Church’s words, not mine.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I make no attempt to interpret scripture on my own; I am not a Protestant. What I wrote were citations of the Church’s interpretation of particular verses that go back at least to the Council of Trent. The Church has no trouble reconciling the fact that God did not allow Cain to be killed and at the same time commanded that murderers be put to death; I am simply repeating Church teaching. You are making an inference from Cain that the Church herself does not make - or do you have a reference to anything the Church has ever said to support your interpretation? How do you explain the citation I just provided? Those are the Church’s words, not mine.

Ender

*“What I wrote were citations of the Church’s interpretation of particular verses that go back at least to the Council of Trent”. *

I see no citation in your post requiring capital punishment; I only see a citation of scripture? I know of no requirement in church teaching to use capital punishment. If you can point to a church teaching requiring capital punishment then there is something to discuss otherwise it is individual alone calling for capital punishment use.

 

[Ender]

I see no citation in your post requiring capital punishment; I only see a citation of scripture? I know of no requirement in church teaching to use capital punishment. If you can point to a church teaching requiring capital punishment then there is something to discuss otherwise it is individual alone calling for capital punishment use.

The scripture cited clearly calls for capital punishment and just to make sure it is clear the Catechism explains that the word blood in the passage actually means life; that is, whoever takes someones life is to lose his own. It could also hardly be made clearer than in this passage:

*Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, **is an act of paramount obedience **to this Commandment which prohibits murder. *

Once again, they are saying that the execution of the unjust is not just permitted but is an act of obedience … and of paramount obedience at that. I’m not sure how much clearer they could make it.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The scripture cited clearly calls for capital punishment

Which god did not follow when Cain killed Able

and just to make sure it is clear the Catechism explains that the word blood in the passage actually means life; that is, whoever takes someones life is to lose his own. It could also hardly be made clearer than in this passage:

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, **is an act of paramount obedience **to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

Once again, they are saying that the execution of the unjust is not just permitted but is an act of obedience … and of paramount obedience at that. I’m not sure how much clearer they could make it.

Ender

And as the church teaches when prohibiting murder can occur through other means just use of power is to use those non-lethal means.

In many Old Testament passages attempts were made to kill out sin through flood, war, etc. it never works because man has soul tainted with original sin. The church teachings are consistent through times

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

The scripture cited clearly calls for capital punishment

Which god did not follow when Cain killed Able

Look, you asked for an instance where the Church taught that capital punishment was required and I gave it to you. In response to this Church teaching you offer your personal interpretation of why Cain was allowed to live. Fine, just bear in mind that your opinion differs not from mine but from the Church’s. As I said before, I have not offered my opinion about anything; I have simply cited what the Church has taught.

And as the church teaches when prohibiting murder can occur through other means just use of power is to use those non-lethal means.

Yes, which brings me back to my earlier comment that 2267 conflicts with other things the Church teaches. I also said that, rather than try to resolve (or even discuss) the differences, you (and pnewton) simply dismiss the conflicts in the belief that 2267 trumps everything else.

The church teachings are consistent through times

I have pointed out that this is untrue as any reading of the citations of the Catechism of Trent make clear. Church teaching on this subject is not even consistent with itself at the present time, let alone through time. To make my case I have quoted from any number of Church documents; to rebut my position you have offered your personal interpretation of scripture, unsupported allegations, and … 2267. If your position is so in tune with what the Church teaches I should think you (or someone else) would have an easier time defending it.

Ender

 

[iluvburpees]

What is the position of the catholic faith on capital punishment? I am a 38 year old male returning to college. One of my research papers is on capital punisment. I just wanted to know what my faith says. Is it wright or wrong? Is it a sin? If anyone can help please respond.
Thank You

Is it right or wrong? It is right when employed correctly.

Is it a sin? It is an act of virtue if employed correctly.

I actually did a research paper this past school year on capital punishment for 12th grade. Through my research, I concluded that the death penalty is without a doubt a good thing and should be employed, especially today. While I do not like to see bloodshed, it is better to rid society of the bad members in order to safeguard the good members.

 

[Spiritoftruth]

…we are pro-life, of course were for it…

 

[iluvburpees]

…we are pro-life, of course were for it…

I hate this argument. It’s the same one used by the Obama-wackos when decent Catholics protested Obama going to Notre Dame.

 

[Ender]

Is it right or wrong? It is right when employed correctly.

This is what the Church has always taught.

Is it a sin? It is an act of virtue if employed correctly.

True, and the virtue is justice.

While I do not like to see bloodshed, it is better to rid society of the bad members in order to safeguard the good members.

The protection of society is a secondary objective of punishment; whether or not society is better protected by executing dangerous criminals does not say whether such punishment is just, and it is justice that requires their execution, not protection.

Ender