Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[Sancte_Iacobus]

I do not intend to read the 19 pages of previously made comments, so I apologize if this has been posted before. The Church is very clear in saying that the state has the full authority to execute criminals. This does not, in any way, violate the 5th Commandment (Thou shalt not murder).

Here is the relevant article from the Roman Catechism solemnly promulgated during the Council of Trent under the patronage of Pope St. Pius V and supervision of St. Charles Borromeo:

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. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

St. Paul is explicitly clear in regard to the right of the state to *“bear the sword” *upon those who undermine its laws. He says:

For princes [state authorities] are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil … For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.

-Romans 13:3-4

… how this manages to remain as some sort of hotly-debated issue, with some Catholics even daring to equate capitol punishment to murder is absolutely beyond me … and absolutely foreign to Catholic thought.

---

In Corde Regis,***
Joshua

 

[severus68]

I do not intend to read the 19 pages of previously made comments, so I apologize if this has been posted before. The Church is very clear in saying that the state has the full authority to execute criminals. This does not, in any way, violate the 5th Commandment (Thou shalt not murder).

Here is the relevant article from the Roman Catechism solemnly promulgated during the Council of Trent under the patronage of Pope St. Pius V and supervision of St. Charles Borromeo:

St. Paul is explicitly clear in regard to the right of the state to *“bear the sword” *upon those who undermine its laws. He says:

… how this manages to remain as some sort of hotly-debated issue, with some Catholics even daring to equate capitol punishment to murder is absolutely beyond me … and absolutely foreign to Catholic thought.

---

In Corde Regis,***
Joshua

Perhaps you should read the current day Cathechism of the RCC which has been posted on this thread and referred to many times. Vengence is not ours. That is why the State does not ask victims and families of victims to inflict the penalty. I do dare to say that it would be better for my soul’s well being to oppose putting to death anyone. Are’nt we Christians, moral persons supposed to be better than murderers?

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

Perhaps you should read the current day Cathechism of the RCC which has been posted on this thread and referred to many times.

What Catechism do you think the Church as a whole employed prior to the introduction of the New Catechism in 1992?

Why should I read the new Catechism which, while certainly not heretical, is so laden with ambiguities … when I have a Catechism that has been used by the Church for the past 500 years, was promulgated during a Dogmatic Council, was compiled and assembled under the watchful eyes of two saints of the Church and is as clear as crystal? This Catechism has been declared by Pope St. Pius V to be free of any error. Do you question its authority? I’d be careful how you answer.

Vengence is not ours. That is why the State does not ask victims and families of victims to inflict the penalty. I do dare to say that it would be better for my soul’s well being to oppose putting to death anyone. Are’nt we Christians, moral persons supposed to be better than murderers?

Did you not read either of my citations? St. Paul himself calls the state:

***… an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. ***

This issue has never been “open-for-debate”, my friend. As a Catholic, do not the words of St. Paul and the Roman Catechism suffice for you? Human life can be morally taken either through the lawful execution of a criminal by the state, in a just war, or in self-defense. This is not my opinion, but rather defined dogmas of the Church. As a Catholic you are obligated to assent to these truths.

Do you wish to persist and form a standpoint in direct opposition to the defined dogma of the Church?

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

 

[severus68]

What Catechism do you think the Church as a whole employed prior to the introduction of the New Catechism in 1992?

Why should I read the new Catechism which, while certainly not heretical, is so laden with ambiguities … when I have a Catechism that has been used by the Church for the past 500 years, was promulgated during a Dogmatic Council, was compiled and assembled under the watchful eyes of two saints of the Church and is as clear as crystal? This Catechism has been declared by Pope St. Pius V to be free of any error. Do you question its authority? I’d be careful how you answer.

Did you not read either of my citations? St. Paul himself calls the state:

***… an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. ***

This issue has never been “open-for-debate”, my friend. As a Catholic, do not the words of St. Paul and the Roman Catechism suffice for you? Human life can be morally taken either through the lawful execution of a criminal by the state, in a just war, or in self-defense. This is not my opinion, but rather defined dogmas of the Church. As a Catholic you are obligated to assent to these truths.

Do you wish to persist and form a standpoint in direct opposition to the defined dogma of the Church?

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

The Church has been run by humans. All humans are not perfect. There was a time when poes had mistresses and children. The Inquisition was dreadful and certainful against what Christ taught. You choose what you want to accept even of the teachingd and you warn me how to answer?

Self defense is acceptable in most parts of the world but the violence you use must be just in defense. No wars are good wars. There have been very few just wars.
u
Yes I do persist in refuting any assertion that the Church is such a great supportor of capital punishment or that it would be what Christ would have wanted.

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

The Church has been run by humans. All humans are not perfect. There was a time when popes had mistresses and children.

Is that how you are going to disregard the very words of St. Paul and the Catechism? Amazing!

Also, the personal lives of Popes, Bishops, Priests or anyone for that matter has no bearing on solemnly defined dogma. The Church cannot make any error when she formally defines doctrines concerning faith and morals … for example: capitol punishment, which the Church has dogmatically defined to be moral under certain parameters. Do you question this?

The Inquisition was dreadful and certainful against what Christ taught.

Oh dear … … please do not tell me you have ascribed to Protestant (Anglican) calumnies against the Catholic Church and Hispano-phobic historical revision now? Ever hear of the Black Legend?

Self defense is acceptable in most parts of the world but the violence you use must be just in defense.

I don’t care what is and what is not acceptable in “most parts of the world”. All I care about is what Holy Mother Church finds acceptable and not acceptable … as should you.

No wars are good wars.

War in and of itself is a result of the fall of man, yes. However, war is not intrinsically evil. This is why the Church has formed a doctrine concerning the existence of Just Wars.

Yes I do persist in refuting any assertion that the Church is such a great supportor of capital punishment or that it would be what Christ would have wanted.

Wrong. What you are persisting in doing is refusing to assent to defined dogma of the Church. The Church has defined that the state has the moral authority to execute criminals. Do you question this dogma of the Church? Yes or no?

… and just to help you make that answer I submit to you:

Heresy: Defined as the obstinate denial of an essential truth/doctrine of the Church.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

 

[severus68]

Is that how you are going to disregard the very words of St. Paul and the Catechism? Amazing!

Also, the personal lives of Popes, Bishops, Priests or anyone for that matter has no bearing on solemnly defined dogma. The Church cannot make any error when she formally defines doctrines concerning faith and morals … for example: capitol punishment, which the Church has dogmatically defined to be moral under certain parameters. Do you question this?

Oh dear … … please do not tell me you have ascribed to Protestant (Anglican) calumnies against the Catholic Church and Hispano-phobic historical revision now? Ever hear of the Black Legend?

I don’t care what is and what is not acceptable in “most parts of the world”. All I care about is what Holy Mother Church finds acceptable and not acceptable … as should you.

War in and of itself is a result of the fall of man, yes. However, war is not intrinsically evil. This is why the Church has formed a doctrine concerning the existence of Just Wars.

Wrong. What you are persisting in doing is refusing to assent to defined dogma of the Church. The Church has defined that the state has the moral authority to execute criminals. Do you question this dogma of the Church? Yes or no?

… and just to help you make that answer I submit to you:

Heresy: Defined as the obstinate denial of an essential truth/doctrine of the Church.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

The Church has made mistakes where the people who ran it made mistakes.

I am not trying to insult the Church so please do not put words in my mouth. You have done enough putting you foot in your mouth.

You brought up self defence didn’t you?

You are calling me a heretic? Shame on you. What did Christ say of the hypocritical pharisees?

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

Serverus, I am going to make this very easy if you’d do me the simple favor of answering a few questions with a simple yes or no.

1. For something to be dogmatically defined by the Church, it means that every Catholic around the world, on pain of mortal sin, is commanded to adhere to this dogma. Are you aware of this fact?
2. Capitol Punishment has been dogmatically defined as acceptable by the Church. This is a fact. Do you deny this?
3. When a Catholic is obstinate in refusing to adhere to a dogmatically defined doctrine of the Church this person is defined by the Church as being a heretic. Are you aware of this fact?

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

 

[severus68]

Serverus, I am going to make this very easy if you’d do me the simple favor of answering a few questions with a simple yes or no.

1. For something to be dogmatically defined by the Church, it means that every Catholic around the world, on pain of mortal sin, is commanded to adhere to this dogma. Are you aware of this fact?
2. Capitol Punishment has been dogmatically defined as acceptable by the Church. This is a fact. Do you deny this?
3. When a Catholic is obstinate in refusing to adhere to a dogmatically defined doctrine of the Church this person is defined by the Church as being a heretic. Are you aware of this fact?

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

I am sorry, a simple yes and no will not suffice. You decide what is dogma, you disagree with the current Cathechism and you talk about heresy? The Church teaches that today the circumstances in which capital punishment is justified are practically non existent. That someone else tells me is not dogma, you appear to say the same.

I don’t hear the Pope throwing the word"heretic" around. Perhaps you should be careful about doing so.

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

I am sorry, a simple yes and no will not suffice.

Actually they will suffice. You’re inventing a gray area that does not exist in reality.

You decide what is dogma, you disagree with the current Cathechism …

I decide what is dogma? Come now, you cannot be this stubborn. I have shown you where the Church has defined it and where Sacred Scripture explicitly mentions it … and your pride wont allow you to forgo your preconceived notions even in the face of irrefutable facts and even after seeing what our Lord’s Church has commanded you to believe.

… and when exactly did I “disagree with the current catechism”? Give me specific quotes please.

I don’t hear the Pope throwing the word “heretic” around.

Your point? Look up the word “heretic” for yourself and do tell me if I’m incorrect. Truth isn’t what you make of it, friend.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

 

[iluvburpees]

Sancte Iacobus, excellent work. Your arguments are very logical and orderly.

 

[severus68]

Actually they will suffice. You’re inventing a gray area that does not exist in reality.

I decide what is dogma? Come now, you cannot be this stubborn. I have shown you where the Church has defined it and where Sacred Scripture explicitly mentions it … and your pride wont allow you to forgo your preconceived notions even in the face of irrefutable facts and even after seeing what our Lord’s Church has commanded you to believe.

… and when exactly did I “disagree with the current catechism”? Give me specific quotes please.

Your point? Look up the word “heretic” for yourself and do tell me if I’m incorrect. Truth isn’t what you make of it, friend.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

I did refer you to the RCC’s Cathechism. Please go back to your response on that. Its funny (peculiar not ha ha) how you ,and there are many of you on various issues, who call those who disagree with you stubborn, prideful and so on. Now you call me a heretic. What about your pride? You are not God and truth is not what you make of it.

 

[Ender]

This Catechism has been declared by Pope St. Pius V to be free of any error.

Can you provide the reference to the statement by Pius V that you mention? In his opening statements about the new Catechism, JPII wrote: *“I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.” *This at the very least implies pretty much the same thing as claimed by Pius V.

The problem of course is that the Catechism of Trent and the Catechism of 1997 differ in an unreconcilable way on the issue of capital punishment and I’m not sure that citing the claims of the popes who promulgated them necessarily resolves the issue. I believe that section 2267 of the current catechism represents the prudential opinion of JPII, does not rise to the level of doctrine, and should never have been included in the first place but I also recognize that this is no small claim.

Ender

 

[David_Zampino]

I decided that I needed to get the actual stand of the Catholic church on this issue.
I asked the Deacon at our church whom I know very well.
He said only God can take life.
THe Church DOES NOT CONDONE THE DAETH PENALTY.
God has given us a free will.
I said that if I were on a jury in a death penalty case I would not sentence the person to death and he said neither would I.
I said the Fifth Commandment comes straight from God and he said that is right.
This is all in Canon law.

Antrim

Respectfully, the “actual stand of the Catholic Church” is found in the Catechism.

 

[Bengoshi]

Let us consider the Biblical Principles. For those who would obey the Lord God, capital punishment is not a matter of choice or opinion poll, or even court decree. It is God’s requirement; it stands as a Biblical principle.
God established the death penalty for willful murder: “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man” (Genesis 9:6). Thus, capital punishment was ordained –not just for Noah or Noah’s time, but “for perpetual generations” (Genesis 9:12).
Capital Punishment and the manner in which it was to be applied is detailed and reaffirmed many times in the Scriptures (Exodus 21:12-15; Leviticus 24:17-23; Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 21”1-9; etc.). Some of these sentences may seem harsh, yet it is clear that if they had been continued, many of the ills that plague society today would never have arisen. In His perfect justice, the Lord God provided for protection of the lawful from the lawless. In Acts 25:10-12, St. Paul makes it clear that he recognizes the continuing validity of the death penalty: “For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die.”
Importantly, in its application of justice, the Bible carefully and clearly delineates between the crime of willful homicide (premeditated murder) and accidental death (manslaughter). God’s Word also declares that causing the death of an unborn child (abortion) is murder (Exodus 21:22-23).
Capital punishment is not to be used for personal revenge; it is a matter of retribution to be exercised as a requirement from the Lord God. God instructs us that (1) the person who willfully takes another’s life must pay for that act by forfeiting his own; (2) the death penalty is not to be exercised by an individual or group but by the properly constituted civil authorities; and (3) this must be done to uphold the sacredness or sanctity of human life (“in the image of God created He man”).
When the Lord God established capital punishment, He also ordained the institution to enforce it (to bear the sword). That institution is the civil government—the corporate body politic (Genesis 9:5). St. Paul refers to this power to protect the innocent and to punish the lawbreaker in Romans 13:4, “for he [the magistrate] does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”
The foundation or basis of civil government is power inherently bestowed upon it by the citizenry. When that power is abused or not used, government is weakened and eventually overturned. When that occurs, the individual, the family, the home, and most if not all lawful aspects of society are imperiled. Capital punishment is essential for the protection of the innocent and the maintenance of a safe and peaceful society. It is part of God’s grace, one of His provisions for the protection of His creation, man.
Some Christians insist that capital punishment violates God’s Sixth Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13). In fact, that admonition is directly tied to the penalty for murder. As Rev. David E. Goodrum points out, the word translated “kill”—when considered in its original meaning and in its usage throughout the Bible—clearly means “murder.” Properly translated, it reads “You shall not murder” as the more modern translations of the Bible correctly renders the word. Further, as Goodrum emphasizes, God Himself gives instructions that violators are to be killed for certain crimes and under certain conditions (Exodus 21:12; Leviticus 24:17, etc.).
In the early days of the American republic, its judicial laws were based upon the Word of God. In A Course of Legal Study—a popular law textbook published in 1836—this sentiment is expressed: “The purity and sublimity of the morals of the Bible have at no time been questioned; it is the foundation of the common law of every Christian nation. The Christian religion is part of the law of the land, and, as such, should certainly receive no inconsiderable portion of the lawyer’s attention. In vain do we look among the writings of ancient philosophers for a system of moral law comparable with that of the Old and New Testament.”
In a thesis on capital punishment, Dr. Francis Nigel Lee explains that it is the duty of civil authorities (“ministers of God to the people for good”) to see to it that all murderers receive the death penalty. “For, the lips of a ruler are to speak the Word of God; and his mouth should not betray justice” (Proverbs 16:10). Judges are rulers who are to “detest wrongdoing”; for a government is “strengthened through righteousness” (Proverbs 16:12-15). “When a ruler executes judgment, he scatters away all evil” (Proverbs 20:8).
Dr. Lee emphasizes, “It is the same after Calvary!” For “governors…are sent…to punish those who do wrong” (1 Peter 2:14). Accordingly, “anyone who kills with the sword, must himself be killed by the sword” (Revelation 13:10).
Corrupt government, unrighteous judges, justice denied and not enforced—these incur the wrath of God and should incur the censure of godly Christians. “Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted” (Habakkuk 1:3-4).
It is a small wonder our nation’s justice system has deteriorated! When God’s Word on the back shelf, the laws of man ignore the laws of the Lord God—and the people suffer.
The Bible tells us that murder pollutes the land, and that the only way to cleanse the land is capital punishment (Numbers 35:33-34). The Bible also instructs us that those nations that fail to enforce capital punishment will be harshly judged (Hosea 1:4; 4:1-5). By obeying the Lord God and enforcing the death penalty for capital crimes, the nation cleanses itself of the guilt of innocent blood; conversely, the nation that refuses to obey God and avenge the taking of innocent human life must share the guilt of the murderer. (Deuteronomy 21:7-8).
God’s Word sets forth certain definite rules so that this ultimate exercise of civil power—the death penalty—will not be abused: (1) capital punishment is to be enforced judiciously, impartially, and only after full and proper (and swift) legal proceedings; (2) testimony in such cases must be corroborated by at least two witnesses and should a witness give a false testimony (perjury or lying under oath), thus to jeopardize the accused improperly, that witness shall be subject to the crime under consideration; and (3) capital punishment is not to be enforced in a spirit of maliciousness or revenge (that is forbidden—Matthew 5:38-44), but used only as God directed.
Thus, we may keep His commandments and statutes so that “it may go well with you” (Deuteronomy 19:13; Numbers 35:31-34; see also: Proverbs 18:5; 13:19; 21:11, 15; 28:17; 29:4).

 

[JaneGrey]

Actually they will suffice. You’re inventing a gray area that does not exist in reality.

I decide what is dogma? Come now, you cannot be this stubborn. I have shown you where the Church has defined it and where Sacred Scripture explicitly mentions it … and your pride wont allow you to forgo your preconceived notions even in the face of irrefutable facts and even after seeing what our Lord’s Church has commanded you to believe.

… and when exactly did I “disagree with the current catechism”? Give me specific quotes please.

Your point? Look up the word “heretic” for yourself and do tell me if I’m incorrect. Truth isn’t what you make of it, friend.

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

Actually, there is a gray area when it comes to Catholicism and the death penalty or this debate would not be so heated and popular. I would like to see you provide very clear and specific evidence that a Catholic who is against the death penalty is guilty of heresy.

Thank you and God bless

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

I did refer you to the RCC’s Cathechism. Please go back to your response on that.

I said it is ambiguous at best, but certainly not heretical. Can you not read?

Ender:

Can you provide the reference to the statement by Pius V that you mention?

Pope St. Pius V had it commissioned under the supervision of St. Charles Borromeo and wrote its preface. No catechism is infallible unless it derives its authority and is promulgated via an infallible document (i.e. via a Dogmatic Council or a Papal Bull). The Roman Catechism (the Catechism of the Council of Trent) was promulgated by the Council of Trent and was the fulfillment of its desire stated in the 25th Session of the Council.

The 1992 Catechism does not enjoy the same status of the Roman Catechism. The fact that others here have discovered Pope John Paul II’s own prudential opinions inserted amidst its articles gives ample evidence of this.

The Roman Catechism is the Church’s Catechism. Period.

JaneGrey:

Actually, there is a gray area when it comes to Catholicism and the death penalty or this debate would not be so heated and popular.

No, not really. The people who challenge the teaching of the Church on this matter are inventing their own gray areas so as not to appear blatantly hostile to defined dogma.

I will submit that the parameters that the state must follow in order to lawfully employ capitol punishment may certainly be mildly debated, but the fact that it is a right of a lawful state to execute evil-doers is defined and is not up for debate.

The right of the state to execute evil-doers is both dogmatically defined, biblically proven and has been upheld by the Church throughout its entire existence.

Heresy is defined as the obstinate denial of a defined dogma of the Church. The Dogmatic Council of Trent has solemnly promulgated its interpretation of the 5th Commandment (via the solemnly promulgated Roman Catechism) as approving of capitol punishment.

So …

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

 

[severus68]

I said it is ambiguous at best, but certainly not heretical. Can you not read?

Pope St. Pius V had it commissioned under the supervision of St. Charles Borromeo and wrote its preface. No catechism is infallible unless it derives its authority and is promulgated via an infallible document (i.e. via a Dogmatic Council or a Papal Bull). The Roman Catechism (the Catechism of the Council of Trent) was promulgated by the Council of Trent and was the fulfillment of its desire stated in the 25th Session of the Council.

The 1992 Catechism does not enjoy the same status of the Roman Catechism. The fact that others here have discovered Pope John Paul II’s own prudential opinions inserted amidst its articles gives ample evidence of this.

The Roman Catechism is the Church’s Catechism. Period.

No, not really. The people who challenge the teaching of the Church on this matter are inventing their own gray areas so as not to appear blatantly hostile to defined dogma.

I will submit that the parameters that the state must follow in order to lawfully employ capitol punishment may certainly be mildly debated, but the fact that it is a right of a lawful state to execute evil-doers is defined and is not up for debate.

The right of the state to execute evil-doers is both dogmatically defined, biblically proven and has been upheld by the Church throughout its entire existence.

Heresy is defined as the obstinate denial of a defined dogma of the Church. The Dogmatic Council of Trent has solemnly promulgated its interpretation of the 5th Commandment (via the solemnly promulgated Roman Catechism) as approving of capitol punishment.

So …

In Corde Regis,
Joshua

I am not going to argue with you about the Cathechism. I will advise my parish priest of your views.

I think you are confused. It is not an issue of the State having the right to apply capital punishment, it is about the Churches’ position. I know you are not alone in saying the 1992 Cathechism is not dogma. I do have a peronal right to give my views and I do have a soul and a conscience which finds the death penalty abhorent. I am not a heretic for that.

In life only God knows all and there is only certainty with God. We do not know God’s mind but we should as Christians know his infinite love and mercy. There are many grey areas with regard to human beings.

 

[JaneGrey]

Can you not read?

Frustrating is’nt it, when someone reads over what you are saying and argues a different thing? (Sarcasm, friend, in case it doesnt come across)

The Roman Catechism is the Church’s Catechism. Period.

Apart from being a grand declaration on the beliefs of the great Sancte Iacobus, this doesnt prove anything to anyone. Period.

No, not really. The people who challenge the teaching of the Church on this matter are inventing their own gray areas so as not to appear blatantly hostile to defined dogma.

Actually many Catholics are deeply divided on this issue. Even if it goes against Church doctrine, many are personally against the death penalty.

but the fact that it is a right of a lawful state to execute evil-doers is defined and is not up for debate.

Not up for debate? Sorry to disappoint you, but that doesnt seem to be the case here. Lets step back and remind ourselves that the United States is not the only ‘‘state’’ in the world. Many lawful states thrive very well without the death penalty. So is a Catholic who lives in a country which has outlawed the death penalty and who supports their government’s decision being a heretic?

The right of the state to execute evil-doers is both dogmatically defined, biblically proven and has been upheld by the Church throughout its entire existence.

Heresy is defined as the obstinate denial of a defined dogma of the Church. The Dogmatic Council of Trent has solemnly promulgated its interpretation of the 5th Commandment (via the solemnly promulgated Roman Catechism) as approving of capitol punishment.

You outline two points here but fail to connect them and thus show how being personally against one’s own state executing its criminals makes one a heretic. Lets say you were right about the Catholic view and states are morally permitted to apply capital punishment. It is simply **not ** heresy if some Catholics remain personally against it because they are unable to recognise its uses and so to them the state is not exempt from the commandment ''thou shalt not kill". Similarly,the fact that the RCC condones meat-eating does not make all Catholic vegetarians heretics either.

Having said all that, we are a little off topic and I have clearly made my points.

The OP simply asked for the Church’s stand on capitol punishment and hopefully he/she has gotten their answer by now.

 

[pnewton]

The Roman Catechism is the Church’s Catechism. Period.

Here is a link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, wherein lies the teaching of the Church.

usccb.org/catechism/text/

We do not as Catholics believe in sola scriptura, nor do we believe in allowing each Catholic interpret Tradition for themselves. If anyone starts pulling out historical documents in an attempt to contradict Church teaching, then warning flags should go up. Flee such self-appointed teachers of tradition as you would those who interpret Scripture contrary to Church teaching.

 

[Sancte_Iacobus]

"pnewton:

If anyone starts pulling out historical documents in an attempt to contradict Church teaching, then warning flags should go up. Flee such self-appointed teachers of tradition as you would those who interpret Scripture contrary to Church teaching.

I can’t help but think that these comments are somehow in some invented way directed toward me. Am I incorrect?

If so, I ask you to please inform me as to where I “pulled” up “historical documents” in an “attempt” to “contradict Church teaching” or promote Sola Scriptura

… all of what you just said (in particular the Sola Scriptura hogwash) are extremely serious accusations and you better be able to substantiate these potential calumnies. I have said nothing contrary to what the Church teaches and I challenge you to say otherwise, sir.

I think you are confused. It is not an issue of the State having the right to apply capital punishment, it is about the Churches’ position.

Serverus, I have never called you or anyone here a heretic. I have simply showed the slippery slope leading to heresy can come from questioning even one of the Church’s teachings.

The two concepts you mention above are one in the same. I have exhaustively showed any inquirer here that capitol punishment is, in principle, morally acceptable according to the** doctrine** (by which we are all bound to assent to) of Holy Mother Church. In addition, nations receive their rights according to what divine and moral law dictates, of which, the Church is the sole mode of conveyance for this law. The fact that nations around the world operate completely independent of what the Church has defined (or even running counter to it) just shows the horrible crisis this world has found itself in.

JaneGrey:

You outline two points here but fail to connect them and thus show how being personally against one’s own state executing its criminals makes one a heretic

I stated that capitol punishment has been dogmatically defined to be a right of the state. I then proceeded to outline the definition of heresy, namely, the obstinate denial of Church dogma in response to those who believe C.P. is not a right of the state … not clear enough?

JaneGrey:

Apart from being a grand declaration on the beliefs of the great Sancte Iacobus, this doesnt prove anything to anyone. Period.

It sure doesn’t. Perhaps the other portions of my post that you didn’t quote may prove what it is that I am saying, NAMELY, that the Roman Catechism enjoys the privilege that no other text can claim, in that it was solemnly promulgated via a Dogmatic Council of the Church via Pope St. Pius V’s explicit command.

Oh … and the “great Sancte Iacobus” business … lets leave melodramatics out of this, shall we?

JaneGrey:

Actually many Catholics are deeply divided on this issue.

… and almost half of Catholics in this nation voted for the most immoral, pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, pro-homosexual President in U.S. history.

What does that tell you? That I should question the dogma of the Church simply because Joe and Jane Catholic are* “deeply divided on the issue”*? I think not.

JaneGrey:

Even if it goes against Church doctrine, many are personally against the death penalty.

Again, what does this tell you? Does it show a deficiency in what the Church has infallibly defined … or perhaps with the mindset of the modern-day Catholic? I’d inclined to say the latter, aren’t you?

Our persons are to be conformed entirely to the whole truth of the Church. To call yourself a Catholic entails that you adhere to all that our Holy Mother the Church has dogmatically defined … this isn’t a suggestion or a strong recommendation being given by the Church. This is a command of the Church.

If you refuse to assent to one point of the Church’s doctrine, it’s game over. We refer to this, rather whimsically, as “Cafeteria Catholicism” but this does not express the real severity of what is taking place.

The holy Apostle, St. James the Greater (Sancte Iacobus) says:

“And whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one point, is become guilty of all.” - James 2:10

If one iota of the law is broken, the observing of all other points will not avail someone to salvation. For all the precepts of the law are to be considered as one total and entire law, and as it were a chain of precepts, where, by breaking one link of this chain, the whole chain is broken. A sinner, therefore, by a grievous offence against any one precept, incurs eternal punishment.

Some may say I am exaggerating, but I guarantee you that if someone upholds this “spiritually schizophrenic” attitude of having two mindsets (one that claims it is Catholic and one that actively and “personally” refuses to assent to all that the Church teaches) then that person is on a very, very dangerous road.

Can we not agree on this, ma’am?

In Corde Regis,
Joshua