Catholism's stand on capitol punishment

[4elise]

For those who don’t want to real Keating’s letter, I’ll provide an extract from it:To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience.
Note Keating’s claim that the section of the Catechism on the death penalty (2267) is prudential. The article he referred to was written by R. Michael Dunnigan who is a canon lawyer and had this to say:Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has a right to impose the death penalty, the Catechism declares that the a**ctual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically nonexistent.” Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching.
Just so. The current teaching is a mess and will have to be revisited and the confusion resolved.

Ender

In a July 10, 2009 statement welcoming Mexico’s new ambassador to the Vatican, Pope Benedict congratulated the Mexican government for having formally repealed the nation’s death penalty laws in 2005.

“It cannot be overemphasized that the right to life must be recognized in all its fullness,” the pope said. He called upon governments to enact laws and public policies that “take into account the high value that a human being has at every moment of existence,” and added: “In this context, I joyfully welcome the initiative by which Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2005, and the recent measures adopted by some Mexican states to protect human life from its beginnings."

 

[JMJ_coder]

The discussion wasn’t about if the individual should be released - rather if they should be executed or put in prison for the remainder of their natural life. The Vatican - and in this case the Bishops in Florida argue for the later.

It was just a tangential commentary. I see it most ridiculous in so-called sexual predators that are made to register their every movement and are watched like a hawk. If they are so much a threat to society, why we’re they released in the first place.

Like I said, just an off-topic tangential comment.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Are those being released guilty of capital crimes?

I don’t know. There may be some – it seems they are going to try to start with those closest to being released (like within 6 months of release). But, it is the fact of release due to not being able to fund the prisons that is worrisome. There are indicators that future budget deficits by the State (which is almost a certainty in our country) may start a troubling trend toward being unable to put prisoners in jail for any substantial length of time.

My query is that if this trend materializes, would not the death penalty be more justified in an effort to protect society, since then the States would not be able to protect society by locking murderers up for the remainder of their life?

 

[Ender]

In a July 10, 2009 statement welcoming Mexico’s new ambassador to the Vatican, Pope Benedict congratulated the Mexican government for having formally repealed the nation’s death penalty laws in 2005.

I have never questioned the fact that JPII supported the repeal of the death penalty; what I do question is the logic behind the position, which as I have pointed out with innumerable references does not accord with what the Church teaches. Repeating that JPII opposed the death penalty is not an argument about the validity of that choice.

JMJ_coder:

It was just a tangential commentary. I see it most ridiculous in so-called sexual predators that are made to register their every movement and are watched like a hawk. If they are so much a threat to society, why we’re they released in the first place.

Actually, this is not such a tangential question. The one justification given in the Catechism for the use of the death penalty is the protection of society and as JMJ_coder accurately points out, sexual predators are very much a continuing threat so, by the logic of 2267, why should they not be executed?

Ender

 

[severus68]

I have never questioned the fact that JPII supported the repeal of the death penalty; what I do question is the logic behind the position, which as I have pointed out with innumerable references does not accord with what the Church teaches. Repeating that JPII opposed the death penalty is not an argument about the validity of that choice.

Actually, this is not such a tangential question. The one justification given in the Catechism for the use of the death penalty is the protection of society and as JMJ_coder accurately points out, sexual predators are very much a continuing threat so, by the logic of 2267, why should they not be executed?

Ender

Elise was referring to our present Pope. So the Popes of the 21st century are wrong and we are wrong to listen to them for at least guidance on this issue?

 

[Ender]

Elise was referring to our present Pope. So the Popes of the 21st century are wrong and we are wrong to listen to them for at least guidance on this issue?

This is not quite accurate. JPII sent Cardinal Ratzinger to Mexico to deliver the Pope’s message; there is no justification for assuming that this was necessarily the Cardinal’s personal opinion. It may well be but this certainly does not show it.

Furthermore, simply stating that the last two popes opposed the death penalty is not the argument against it that you think it is. If you are impressed that you have (possibly) two opposing it how do you respond when I point out that there were about a dozen who specifically acknowledged the propriety of its use? You seem ready to stake the validity of your position on the number of Popes supporting it but since I have more Popes than you does this mean I win?

Ender

 

[severus68]

This is not quite accurate. JPII sent Cardinal Ratzinger to Mexico to deliver the Pope’s message; there is no justification for assuming that this was necessarily the Cardinal’s personal opinion. It may well be but this certainly does not show it.

Furthermore, simply stating that the last two popes opposed the death penalty is not the argument against it that you think it is. If you are impressed that you have (possibly) two opposing it how do you respond when I point out that there were about a dozen who specifically acknowledged the propriety of its use? You seem ready to stake the validity of your position on the number of Popes supporting it but since I have more Popes than you does this mean I win?

Ender

You keep referring to what the Church taught in the past. Why can’t I refer to what the Church teaches us now, pray tell me?

 

[Ender]

You keep referring to what the Church taught in the past. Why can’t I refer to what the Church teaches us now, pray tell me?

You certainly can but what you need to do is reconcile 2267 with what was previously taught as well as what is taught today that seems to conflict with it. Finding new ways of repeating JPII’s opinion doesn’t seem to add much to that discussion.

Ender

 

[Portrait]

Dear Ender,

It does appear incontrovertible that their has been a radical shift in our Church’s understanding of capital punishment in recent years. In the official revised edition of the Catechism (1997) there is wanting any reference to the concept of just retribution, notwithstanding the unequivocal biblical tradition. Moreover, one could be forgiven for asking whether the late Pope John Paul’s *personal *opinions ( as expressed in Evangelium vitae) on this subject have been allowed a place in a work that is intended to authoritatively teach the faithful, not engender uncertainty. One must also ask why both he and the current Pope have felt led to abandon not only the biblical tradition but also the consistent teaching of the Church through the ages as touching just retribution; is it because this concept is no longer fashionable or popular and is thus perceived as an obstacle to credibility? In any event merely to give protection from the “unjust aggressor” (para. 2267) as a “very rare” possible reason for the death penalty, is profoundly inadequate to say the very least. Moreover, does the present wording of 2267 really do justice to the biblical tradition (e.g. Gen. 9:6, Rom. 13:4)? That would surely be a difficult, if not impossible position to maintain and defend.

Of course this is not to deny that Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict may have a personal opinion about the death penalty ( the plainly did and do respectively), but should that “prudential opinion” be permitted a place in a dogmatic Church work like the Catechism - a teaching norm to which the faithful, and indeed others, repair to to find out what the church authoritatively teaches on any given issue?

Therefore I would concur with you that there is a very real problem here harmonizing our Church’s current position on capital punishment with what has been held hitherto. To facilitate clarity of defintion and to consistently mirror the biblical tradition, it should revert either to the former wording of the 1992 edition, or draft up something entirely new that is in harmony with it. However, is this possible now since the “…official (Latin) version must be definitive, and cannot be subject to changes”.

Again let me make it abundantly clear, I am not refusing to allow a Pope a private opinion, but that opinion should not be permitted to intrude into, modify, or tone down official Church teaching - not even the Papacy can trump Sacred Scripture.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[4elise]

You certainly can but what you need to do is reconcile 2267 with what was previously taught as well as what is taught today that seems to conflict with it. Finding new ways of repeating JPII’s opinion doesn’t seem to add much to that discussion.

Ender

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

I don’t think any of us need to do any reconciliation with 2267 and tradition - the Church has done this already This is not opinion but the **Catechism of the Catholic Church
**
Allow me to post it again… vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

 

[4elise]

Again let me make it abundantly clear, I am not refusing to allow a Pope a private opinion, but that opinion should not be permitted to intrude into, modify, or tone down official Church teaching - not even the Papacy can trump Sacred Scripture.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

It is not opinion - but in the words of the Catechism of the Church -

 

[mapleoak]

Sorry Eddie - I thought life imprisonment without the possibility of parole renders one unable to inflict additional harm to society.

Two convicted killers escape from maximum security prison - Michigan City, IN.

huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/12/2-convicted-killers-escap_n_230281.html

 

[4elise]

Two convicted killers escape from maximum security prison - Michigan City, IN.

huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/12/2-convicted-killers-escap_n_230281.html

This is tragic mapleoak, and happily they have all been recaptured - I googled a couple of other news articles on this and, - apparently there had been failures in policy that would have kept them away from society… human error - and yes it could have led to them doing some other heinous - it didn’t thank God. Sorry if my previous post sounded too naive - keeping society safe requires vigilance.

 

[Ender]

I don’t think any of us need to do any reconciliation with 2267 and tradition - the Church has done this already

You are rejecting the obvious; even those who agree with 2267 recognize that it is a radical departure from the past. If that were not so then we could just as easily use the words of the Council of Trent on the subject, which quite clearly have a totally different understanding. There are no references in 2267 to anything the Church has ever said in support of its position. This is because there is nothing that came before to be referenced. Nor is it merely a question of reconciling 2267 with tradition; 2267 cannot even be reconciled with the rest of the same Catechism which contains it.

This is not opinion but the **Catechism of the Catholic Church
**
Allow me to post it again… vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

Repetition is not argument; we’re all familiar with what 2267 says. I will point out, however, that the link you provided is to the entire section on punishment which includes 2260. How do you reconcile 2260 with 2267?

As to whether it is or is not opinion, again, simply stating that it is the Catechism isn’t much of an argument. There are quite a number of serious people who have studied the issue who have concluded that that is exactly what it is and I would include the USCCB in that group (although I don’t necessarily consider them as people to be taken seriously).

Ender

 

[mapleoak]

This is tragic mapleoak, and happily they have all been recaptured - I googled a couple of other news articles on this and, - apparently there had been failures in policy that would have kept them away from society… human error - and yes it could have led to them doing some other heinous - it didn’t thank God. Sorry if my previous post sounded too naive - keeping society safe requires vigilance.

In light of the potential for human error regarding policy and the potential for prison escapes (there is no such thing as escape proof) how much weight would you consider that there should be in regards to justice being commensurate with the injustice committed?

 

[mapleoak]

You are rejecting the obvious; even those who agree with 2267 recognize that it is a radical departure from the past. If that were not so then we could just as easily use the words of the Council of Trent on the subject, which quite clearly have a totally different understanding. There are no references in 2267 to anything the Church has ever said in support of its position. This is because there is nothing that came before to be referenced. Nor is it merely a question of reconciling 2267 with tradition; 2267 cannot even be reconciled with the rest of the same Catechism which contains it.

Repetition is not argument; we’re all familiar with what 2267 says. I will point out, however, that the link you provided is to the entire section on punishment which includes 2260. How do you reconcile 2260 with 2267?

The paragraph in 2267 has baffled me as well when considering it against the historical Church’s position and the other references you have pointed out.

 

[Sunflower15]

I would suggest reading the story of St. Maria Goretti and her murderer, Alessandro Serenelli.
**
mariagoretti.org/alessandrobio.htm**

Great story about forgiveness, redemption, and not only of leaving justice to the Will of God but of actually interceding for her murderer to be redeemed.

St. Maria Goretti gives a VERY good example of Christ’s teachings and evidently, the Church considered this a good role model to emulate, since this young girl was canonized.

Beautiful!

 

[4elise]

You are rejecting the obvious; even those who agree with 2267 recognize that it is a radical departure from the past. If that were not so then we could just as easily use the words of the Council of Trent on the subject, which quite clearly have a totally different understanding. There are no references in 2267 to anything the Church has ever said in support of its position. This is because there is nothing that came before to be referenced. Nor is it merely a question of reconciling 2267 with tradition; 2267 cannot even be reconciled with the rest of the same Catechism which contains it.

Repetition is not argument; we’re all familiar with what 2267 says. I will point out, however, that the link you provided is to the entire section on punishment which includes 2260. How do you reconcile 2260 with 2267?

As to whether it is or is not opinion, again, simply stating that it is the Catechism isn’t much of an argument. There are quite a number of serious people who have studied the issue who have concluded that that is exactly what it is and I would include the USCCB in that group (although I don’t necessarily consider them as people to be taken seriously).

Ender

Sorry if it just seems repetitive - and I appreciate that there is a discussion about this in light of tradition - however isn’t the Catechism the final word on Catholic teaching?

18 This catechism is conceived as an organic presentation of the Catholic faith in its entirety.

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Therefore we have no need to reconcile any discrepancy right?

 

[Portrait]

Dear 4Elise,

The question continues to remain unanswered as to why the retributive/, or if you find the connotation of that word distasteful (many people do now), requital component is absent from the revised edition of our Catechisim.

Moreover, I freely admit that the Catechisim “does not exclude recourse to the death penalty” (p. 2267), nevertheless in so far as it is silent on the biblical idea of retribution ( it only now speaks in terms of protecting society) it is out of kilter with the past venerable tradition. Now it really will not do to dismiss this with a “well that was the past, this is now, the 21st cent.”, sort of response. The fact of the matter is that even heavy- weight theologians have observed this discordance with the long historical tradition of the Church. The faithful surely have a right to ask why their Church has seen fit to dispense with the retributive element now.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you yourself have stated in the threads (you cite the Florida Bishops, for example) that the trend nowadays is away from capital punishment to more non-lethal means. Again I ask why is this so when it flies in the face of biblical and historical norms?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[4elise]

Dear 4Elise,

The question continues to remain unanswered as to why the retributive/, or if you find the connotation of that word distasteful (many people do now), requital component is absent from the revised edition of our Catechisim.

Moreover, I freely admit that the Catechisim “does not exclude recourse to the death penalty” (p. 2267), nevertheless in so far as it is silent on the biblical idea of retribution ( it only now speaks in terms of protecting society) it is out of kilter with the past venerable tradition. Now it really will not do to dismiss this with a “well that was the past, this is now, the 21st cent.”, sort of response. The fact of the matter is that even heavy- weight theologians have observed this discordance with the long historical tradition of the Church. The faithful surely have a right to ask why their Church has seen fit to dispense with the retributive element now.

Correct me if I’m wrong but you yourself have stated in the threads (you cite the Florida Bishops, for example) that the trend nowadays is away from capital punishment to more non-lethal means. Again I ask why is this so when it flies in the face of biblical and historical norms?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Thanks Portrait
The reason that I have no problem with non-lethal means is that I believe that the retributive need is met with life in prison (without the possibility of parole) -
Blessings,