A
AlNg
Guest
It was on the ballot : Do you want capital punishment to remain legal.
Is it inadmissable to vote YES ?
Last edited:
- Status
Is it inadmissable to vote YES ?
Emeraldlady
New member
Article 6 and the whole of Q87 is exclusively addressing punishment for sin by God, not by human justice. Penal compensation here is referring to penance only. Read the whole chapter and it should help you understand. There is only one reference to human justice as an aside at the end of Art. 8.Emeraldlady:
Is it now? Here is the entire section my citation was drawn from:
Two things may be considered in sin: the guilty act, and the consequent stain. Now it is evident that in all actual sins, when the act of sin has ceased, the guilt remains; because the act of sin makes man deserving of punishment, in so far as he transgresses the order of Divine justice, to which he cannot return except he pay some sort of penal compensation, which restores him to the equality of justice; so that, according to the order of Divine justice, he who has been too indulgent to his will, by transgressing God’s commandments, suffers, either willingly or unwillingly, something contrary to what he would wish. This restoration of the equality of justice by penal compensation is also to be observed in injuries done to one’s fellow men. Consequently it is evident that when the sinful or injurious act has ceased there still remains the debt of punishment.
Given that “penal compensation is also to be observed in injuries done to one’s fellow men” it would seem that your insistence that this section applies “exclusively…to penance for sin and a person’s relationship with God” is…less than accurate.
No. Whether you have misread the chapter or knew that you were conflating two separate types of penal compensation ie penance and civil punishment, the error is wholly and solely yours. My comments are not wrong. They are informed and accurate and I am obliged to correct misleading arguments especially ones intended to cast doubt on Church teaching.
Last edited:
G
godisgood77
Guest
O
OneSheep
Guest
While I agree with the end result, your answer does not explain how the death penalty communicates and carries out God’s love for the person being executed.
A Short History:
OneSheep: What is the purpose of retribution, order, and justice itself?
Ender: __________________ I don’t know, tell me. (paraphrased)
OneSheep: The purpose of justice, retribution, order, has foundation in the Love of God, all that has to do with justice and order is because He loves us and wants our well-being.
Ender: (paraphrasing) Okay, I’ll accept that.
Now, if you do not accept that today, let’s go back to the question: What is the purpose of retribution, order, and justice? What is the purpose of all these?
I have already explained why Aquinas is not the go-to authority on this topic. Aquinas was not aware of the last few centuries worth of unfolding revelation. Some of Aquinas’ words concerning punishment would now be considered horrid by any modern Christian.
Please, if you are going to quote Aquinas, be ready to support why modern Christians should find joy in seeing people suffer in hell. Are you ready to do that?
Last edited:
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
The Declaration of Truths issued by Cardinal Burke, Bishop Schneider et al specifically states that the Church did not err when it taught that the state may lawfully impose capital punishment on malefactors when it is necessary to preserve a just society.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13HrAs1ObxItPIa9TfPwmjnzVS9WPR3A-/view
A Pope can make a judgment on whether it is prudent or necessary to apply the death penalty today, but he has no authority to declare something illicit which the ordinary Magisterium of the Church (the Bible, Church Fathers, previous Popes) have determined is licit, at least in principle or in certain circumstances (which I should note has been established infallibly at the very least as a secondary object of infallibility).
We can argue in good faith on whether it is prudent, wise, or necessary to apply the death penalty in today’s society and whether or not it would do more harm than good. But to argue it is always wrong, regardless of circumstances, would be a disaster as Cardinal Avery Dulles noted, as it will call into question the Magisterium of the Church on other doctrines that have also been considered settled (self defence, just war, a male only clergy, the illicitness of homosexual acts, the teaching against abortion, contraception and euthanasia, etc).
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-capital-punishmenthurch
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13HrAs1ObxItPIa9TfPwmjnzVS9WPR3A-/view
A Pope can make a judgment on whether it is prudent or necessary to apply the death penalty today, but he has no authority to declare something illicit which the ordinary Magisterium of the Church (the Bible, Church Fathers, previous Popes) have determined is licit, at least in principle or in certain circumstances (which I should note has been established infallibly at the very least as a secondary object of infallibility).
We can argue in good faith on whether it is prudent, wise, or necessary to apply the death penalty in today’s society and whether or not it would do more harm than good. But to argue it is always wrong, regardless of circumstances, would be a disaster as Cardinal Avery Dulles noted, as it will call into question the Magisterium of the Church on other doctrines that have also been considered settled (self defence, just war, a male only clergy, the illicitness of homosexual acts, the teaching against abortion, contraception and euthanasia, etc).
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-capital-punishmenthurch
Last edited:
M
Mrboast
Guest
If we Catholics interpret this as a reversal of doctrine and a statement by the Church that the death penalty is fundamentally immoral, which is contrary to what the Church has told us, this new understanding will be the low hanging fruit critics of the Church will highlight to disprove what we say about Her. Why do so few prelates and lay Catholics not have a problem with this? How can one defend against the simple charge of: “You guys admitted you were wrong on something you taught as right for 2,000 years! Why should we believe you on this or that teaching?”! We actually must fight against this interpretation in my opinion, for the good of the Church.
If the death penalty is always and everywhere immoral and the Church reversed course on such a serious issue after such a long time, how could one have comfort that what She teaches as moral now, won’t be immoral later, or what She teaches as immoral now won’t be moral later? After all, even a 2,000 year old teaching isn’t safe! Can’t you see this does not work? Everything but the few explicit Dogmas becomes up for grabs and subject to the interpretation of the current generation. Therefore, I am with those Bishops and theologians who say the only way to look at this is as a strong prudential judgment.
I admit that I am of weak faith and converted to the Church in no small part because of Her logic and consistency and perhaps put too much weight there - but It did lead me to believe that what She claimed was in fact true. I do not believe, as concerning fundamental faith and morals, we are just one of many Christian communities trying to figure it all out. I have great anxiety over this new teaching and the absoluteness of it. That the proper and moral response to a Hitler or Stalin is life imprisonment is wholly irrational to me and actually opposed to the common good, and I can’t seem to consider otherwise. So until then, I find comfort in my conclusion above - a conclusion I didn’t invent and one that is shared by many Bishops and theologians.
If the death penalty is always and everywhere immoral and the Church reversed course on such a serious issue after such a long time, how could one have comfort that what She teaches as moral now, won’t be immoral later, or what She teaches as immoral now won’t be moral later? After all, even a 2,000 year old teaching isn’t safe! Can’t you see this does not work? Everything but the few explicit Dogmas becomes up for grabs and subject to the interpretation of the current generation. Therefore, I am with those Bishops and theologians who say the only way to look at this is as a strong prudential judgment.
I admit that I am of weak faith and converted to the Church in no small part because of Her logic and consistency and perhaps put too much weight there - but It did lead me to believe that what She claimed was in fact true. I do not believe, as concerning fundamental faith and morals, we are just one of many Christian communities trying to figure it all out. I have great anxiety over this new teaching and the absoluteness of it. That the proper and moral response to a Hitler or Stalin is life imprisonment is wholly irrational to me and actually opposed to the common good, and I can’t seem to consider otherwise. So until then, I find comfort in my conclusion above - a conclusion I didn’t invent and one that is shared by many Bishops and theologians.
Last edited:
B
Bernoulli
Guest
Why do you think God did not communicate love to the Good Thief?
O
OneSheep
Guest
If God speaks through people, then how does the death penalty communicate God’s love to anyone?
E
Ender
Guest
None of those three were being discussed. Here was your assertion with which I disagreed:
That statement is contradicted by the catechism which states that: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”
Given that virtually all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church acknowledged the legitimacy of capital punishment, discarding Aquinas really doesn’t limit the field that much.
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
Very good post.
E
Ender
Guest
Your instincts are dead on here.
In the case where human life is made the object of a criminal gamble, where hundreds and thousands are reduced to extreme want and driven to distress, a mere privation of civil rights would be an insult to justice. (Pius XII, 1953)
A
AlNg
Guest
So it is inadmissable to vote in favor of capital punishment. Suppose though that you did so, knowing that it was inadmissable. Would you have to go to confession before receiving Holy Communion?
G
godisgood77
Guest
I would… but your conscience would have to tell you
A
AlNg
Guest
So in the end it is prudential.
G
graciew
Guest
Prudential judgement is not a pretext to ignore Church teaching.
G
godisgood77
Guest
What isn’t prudential then?
Birth control, abortion, murder, honor the Lord your God…honor your father and mother.
God gave you free will.
The Church has the authority to teach… and as Catholics we are obliged to abide by her teaching… we have the freedoms to obey or disobey…
The Church teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible… your choice from there
A
AlNg
Guest
No. birth control is grave matter. It is not prudential. Whether to abstain from meat on Friday or perform some other penance is prudential in some countries. If, for a serious reason, you choose to remain apart from your spouse but not remarry, whether or not to apply for a marriage annulment is prudential.
Is voting for capital punishment
grave matter ?
inadmissable ?
prudential ?
Last edited:
G
godisgood77
Guest
As humans, we have all sorts of freedoms to make our own choices… choosing the death penalty as a Catholic is a big bad deal
M
Mrboast
Guest
Was it ok to support the death penalty in July 2018 but not the next month? Or better yet, the day before the Catechism was changed but not the day after?
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
The church held it to be heresy to deny that States had the right to use capital punishment, but if it is now immoral to believe otherwise apparently the heretics were right. That’s probably not something most of us ever expected to hear.
- Status