G
godisgood77
Guest
Yes, a sin… for Catholics the death penalty is inadmissible as it is an attack against the inviolability of human dignity
- Status
M
Maximus1
Guest
Different questions.
You first ask could there be a situation where Capital punishment could exist.
As I read the changes, it does not seem presently.
If conditions changed, like global Marshal law instability.( Or climate change problems like mass migration and institutions breaking down, I think it can exist again.
You first ask could there be a situation where Capital punishment could exist.
As I read the changes, it does not seem presently.
If conditions changed, like global Marshal law instability.( Or climate change problems like mass migration and institutions breaking down, I think it can exist again.
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
Mercy does not force victims of heinous crime to accept injustice.
God wills it that justice be upheld and defend the victims of heinous crimes.
Having said this, I think, capital punishment only necessary for premeditated murders by a completely sane person who has no mental illness or any other reason that impede his capability to reason sanely of his action of murdering his fellow man, as stated in Deuteronomy 19:11-13
But if someone at enmity with another lies in wait and attacks and takes the life of that person, and flees into one of these cities, then the elders of the killer’s city shall send to have the culprit taken from there and handed over to the avenger of blood to be put to death. Show no pity…
(Deut 19:11-13)
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
Which is why I believe the Church did not condemn the killing of Osama bin Laden. It was absolutely necessary.
Emeraldlady
New member
Bearing in mind that Aquinas was defending the legitimate use of the death penalty when he used these verses. He also addressed Scripture commanding people to forebear from using the death penalty when it was harmful to society.
E
Ender
Guest
The response to all these comments is the same: given that the new “teaching” on capital punishment is a judgment, it does not require us to agree with it. If we have seriously considered the matter we are allowed (according to the church herself) to disagree with such judgments, therefore there is no sin in coming to a different conclusion about the appropriateness of using capital punishment.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Why do you put the word teaching in quotes? Seems to imply that it is something other than a teaching. The Church does not do that… the Catechism states clearly what the Church teaches.
And to be clear… there is no ‘new’ teaching on the death penalty… the teaching has been developed (according to the church herself)
I think this is wrong… the Church teaches in the Catechism authoritatively on the subject… and the CDF clearly explains this development of this doctrine.
E
Ender
Guest
The word “teaching” in this context is ambiguous inasmuch as it applies equally to doctrines as well as prudential judgments, which is precisely the distinction that needs to be made here. I didn’t mean to suggest that the newest change wasn’t an actual teaching; I was trying to emphasize the point that the use of that word masks a critical distinction.
If you mean there is no new doctrine, I would agree, and Cardinal Dulles’ comments made in 2004 would still apply.
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.
My position is based on what the bishops have said.
It is not one of those teachings a Catholic has to accept, like, for example, abortion. Abortion has clearly been defined by the church as a moral evil, which is never accepted under any circumstances or any justification.” …"If they’ve thought it through and prayed about it, they can still be a Catholic in good standing and not go along with the bishops on this (death penalty) issue. (Bishop James Conley, 2016)
G
godisgood77
Guest
I agree that your position is based on the comments of a bishop.
My position is based on the formalized teaching captured in the Catechism and the congregation for the doctrine of the faith’s formal explanation of the development of this doctrine.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
You think the Catholic position on the death penalty is optional?
You think what Pope Francis wrote is irrelevant and not the position of the church on morality regarding the death penalty?
would that be the new neo- relativism?
You think what Pope Francis wrote is irrelevant and not the position of the church on morality regarding the death penalty?
would that be the new neo- relativism?
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Is it more convincing if I cite more than one?
The Church is not changing her teaching. Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty if it is necessary to carry out its task of ensuring social order. What the Church is urging now is that governments exercise their discretion. (Archbishop Jose Gomez, 2016)
There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty. (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
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. (Cardinal Dulles, 2004)
Your position is based on your understanding of what has been taught. Mine is based on how various bishops have explained it.
If the position represents a prudential judgment then assent is not required. That doesn’t suggest “optional” because it obliges our serious consideration, but in the end we are justified in following our own judgment in the matter.
This phrasing is ambiguous and still does not address the distinction I have repeatedly made: is the new version of 2267 a prudential judgment or is it a new doctrine? If it is a judgment then we are not obliged to assent to it; the church herself teaches this. If it is a new doctrine, then what distinguishes the new doctrine from the old one, and, if it is believed that the new doctrine absolutely forbids the use of capital punishment how can that interpretation be supported in light of this from Cardinal Ladaria?
…this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.
A change from “Governments will always have the justification to use the death penalty….” to what you suggest, that “Governments no longer have the justification to use the death penalty” would surely be a contradiction of prior teaching.
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
Why don’t you want the death penalty abolished in your country?Ender:
But why would any Catholic want to dissent from this teaching?
E
Ender
Guest
If you look more closely at my comments you will see almost none of them are actually in direct support of capital punishment. My posts are almost exclusively against the arguments that are being made opposing its use. I do that because I find most arguments are not only wrong but actually quite harmful to the church herself. It is not capital punishment per se that I am supporting; it is invalid and damaging arguments that I am opposing.
J
JimG
Guest
I’m not sure what “inadmissable” means. Intrinsically evil, not recommended, not allowed for Catholics to be involved in, morally wrong at this time, morally wrong at any time, etc. I would prefer clarity over eloquent ambiguity.
M
Maximus1
Guest
I think Cardinal Dulles made the point I made using the Adulteress example.
As Cardinal Dulles says, " In Principle."
Jesus does not change God’s law about stoning the Adulteress. He leaves it intact. That is what Pope Francis did here.
The new doctrine, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, did not change the death penalty for the Adulteress. IT SURVIVES IN PRINCIPLE. It removes the stones from the hands throwing. THROW, AND YOU SIN. AND to analogize here, support throwing, and you sin. Unless of course the person throwing is actually without sin.
As Cardinal Dulles says, " In Principle."
Jesus does not change God’s law about stoning the Adulteress. He leaves it intact. That is what Pope Francis did here.
The new doctrine, let he who is without sin cast the first stone, did not change the death penalty for the Adulteress. IT SURVIVES IN PRINCIPLE. It removes the stones from the hands throwing. THROW, AND YOU SIN. AND to analogize here, support throwing, and you sin. Unless of course the person throwing is actually without sin.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I will point out again that while you may believe this story applies to capital punishment, it is not one the church has ever used in her discussion of the topic, and if it is true that this example would ban that punishment in particular it would seem to equally ban all punishment in general given that not only was the woman not punished with death, she received no punishment at all.
G
godisgood77
Guest
You must know your position is untenable… you can’t simply dismiss everyone elses position by saying that it is their understanding… while you advance your understanding of an opposite position. If you put forward a bishops statements, then you must accept statements from other bishops, popes, and authortative Chruch sources on the subject.
Either way… my position is irrelevant as is yours… the position of the Church, the Pope, the Catechism and the CDF is what is important. They have taught and explained with authority on this. I am obedient to those sources.
Relative to citing a few bishops comments on it… Some bishops have always disagreed with the authority on various subjects throughout the history of the Church.
Last edited:
G
godisgood77
Guest
I would argue she did receive punishment… public shaming and trauma were exacted and forgiveness by God himself extended.
E
Ender
Guest
This is the kind of thing I was referring to when I spoke earlier of “bad arguments.” One of the bishops I cited (and to whom the epithet of disagreeing with the authority of the church would apply)…was Cardinal Ratzinger.
M
Maximus1
Guest
We can agree on much that you said.
First, I don’t know everything the Church used by way of analogy for 2000 years. But who knows, I might have a footnote coming.
Adultery…A Commandment…A punishment of death.
Murder…A Commandment…A punishment of death.
So far so good. In modern times adultery and murder are thought of differently, but back then, all Commandments were basically created equal. Or at least these two.
This argument where I line up apples and apple are as close as you get.
The Oranges
Not a determination of error in the law…Another Doctrine that essentially nullifies application.
For Adultery, the let he…cast thr first stone leaves no stone throwers.
For murder… Modern statistics of unfair trial and error genetically found…not available to Aquinas…
For murder, you can incarcerate and maintain safety…back then, a concern.
There are others, but I got the oranges to.
First, I don’t know everything the Church used by way of analogy for 2000 years. But who knows, I might have a footnote coming.
Adultery…A Commandment…A punishment of death.
Murder…A Commandment…A punishment of death.
So far so good. In modern times adultery and murder are thought of differently, but back then, all Commandments were basically created equal. Or at least these two.
This argument where I line up apples and apple are as close as you get.
The Oranges
Not a determination of error in the law…Another Doctrine that essentially nullifies application.
For Adultery, the let he…cast thr first stone leaves no stone throwers.
For murder… Modern statistics of unfair trial and error genetically found…not available to Aquinas…
For murder, you can incarcerate and maintain safety…back then, a concern.
There are others, but I got the oranges to.
- Status