Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[Maximus1]

A mystery? That is at least more Catholic than FUNDEMENTALISM.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Adam and Eve are Adam and Eve. This is not them.
I say this because the genetic evidence brings this into question. And of course we are not a FUNDEMENTALISM religion.

Was Pope Saint Joh Paul II a “fundamentalist”? In the Catechism he wrote this:

How to read the account of the fall

390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man . Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents.

 

[Maximus1]

What do you think SPJPII is saying? Adam and Eve are a different subject entierly in Genesis 3. There is no carry over to , The Tower of Babble, or the Ark and it’s cargo, or many OT stories. These stories are inspired, but are not part of a history or natural science text.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

These stories are inspired, but are not part of a history or natural science text.

These books are historical texts, even thought they may use a figurative language. The Church (including the Fathers, the Doctors and the ordinary and universal magisterium of the popes ) has always considered them to be historical.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

the genetic evidence brings this into question.

The use of Ancient Near East warfare rhetoric by the biblical author may account for the genetic and archeological evidence. There was a conquest, but not a total extermination.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

You are using “fundamentalism” as a label. People often use labels when they don’t want to engage in a serious and honest rational discussion. I hope this is not the case.

 

[o_mlly]

… however surely what is morally acceptable cannot change?

The death penalty as a right of the state has never been absolute and has been constrained over history by Church teaching in its permissible circumstances. The advance of technology is a legitimate cause for further restraint.

Technology moves in only one direction. Once we know how to do a thing, we cannot not-know in normal circumstances. In addition to the technology in prison architecture, systems and procedures in retaining prisoners effectively, there is also novel technologies in the forensic sciences that come to bear on what a “fair trial” consist in.

Revision of 2267:
following a fair trial

Prior 2267:
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined

Does the “reasonable doubt” threshold for establishing guilt meet the “fully determined” requirement? In the past, it has not. We know that the state has executed people who were innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. We do not get a “do over” following the execution of an innocent. We do know that the technology used to determine guilt will improve in time.

Watch for the next revision of 2267 to move from “inadmissable” to an even higher proscription for the death penalty.

 

[Mrboast]

The death penalty as a right of the state has never been absolute and has been constrained over history by Church teaching in its permissible circumstances. The advance of technology is a legitimate cause for further restraint.

“Further restraint” perhaps…and debatable, and obviously does not imply immorality…but an absolute abolishment is nonsensical.

The argument may work if the Church taught that deterrence was the sole purpose of punishment.

It might also work if the above was true and it were also true that such an absolute assertion was supported by absolute evidence.

 

[o_mlly]

“Further restraint” perhaps…and debatable, and obviously does not imply immorality…but an absolute abolishment is nonsensical.

Yes, yes and never suggested the last.

The argument may work if the Church taught that deterrence was the sole purpose of punishment.

Not necessarily.

It might also work if the above was true and it were also true that such an absolute assertion was supported by absolute evidence.

No absolute assertion was made. ?

 

[Maximus1]

That is not true.
Dei Verbatim makes it clear with it’s last phrase on the subject. If I recall it concludes," FOR THE SAKE OF SALVATION." Inspiration is inerrant in terms of the Genesis passages text with this qualifier. It isn’t a science or history text. AND NEVER WAS.
The authors of Genesis , and those the text were written to, know this.It derives from their tradition, cultural, language and other influences foreign to us that give the text meaning.
This view that somehow the Holy Spirit made hand puppets out of many authors taking dictation is absurd. You want modernist, there it is. Mature modernist.
The comedian Lewis Black used to joke, It’s not your fault, it’s not your book." Poking fun at FUNDEMENTALISM misinterpretation. I can laugh at myself, so I am not offended. But, I know his observations are not inaccurate.

 

[Ender]

The death penalty as a right of the state has never been absolute and has been constrained over history by Church teaching in its permissible circumstances.

A “teaching” based on circumstances is by definition a prudential judgment.

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances…" (Cardinal Dulles)

And while such judgments need to be taken seriously, they do not oblige our assent.

“…To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.”

As for whether a state’s right to use it is “absolute” depends on what that word means. It has never meant “justifiable in every case” simply because a state has the general right to apply it, but it does in fact mean absolute in the sense that it has always been - and continues to be - a right belonging to the state. Whether they abuse the right doesn’t go to the issue of whether they have the right.

 

[Maximus1]

This aspect of your analysis is confusing
“Application of Catholic Doctrine to changing circumstances.”
I can see modern genetics and criminology being that. I can see modern incarceration facilities being that. To an extent changing cultural values when they are positive.
But how about HUMAN DIGNITY? That doesn’t work does it?
By developing an ever evolving greater theology about HUMAN DIGNITY, you do not quite fit into appropriateness any more.
This is because the Prudential winds cannot be expected to withdraw from HUMAN DIGNITY. " Starting today, our views of HUMAN DIGNITY have contracted. We shrunk it! And now prudentially, Capital punishment can return because of the eternal truth about it’s justness? It is grotesque.
HUMAN DIGNITY, once recognised, identified and our understanding becomes enhanced is an evolution toward an eternal truth. Hidden. As was the case when Moses allowed religious Gets when men’s hearts were hard.
There is a breathtaking passage in the Gospel. Jesus, with his Apostles for the last time before the cross explains he has told them what he knows about the fathers " WHY". He calls them his friends. No longer slaves.
A slave does not know his master’s reason when given a task. He blindly complies with his directions not appreciating the significance of the task. He is limited to features of the task to proove his value.
A slave is righteous only in the strict adherence to matters of efficiency, speed, accuracy, of the task steps and completion. Steps and features of the task represent the value of his righteousness. Nothing whatever to do with the reason he was set in motion in the first place.
The friend Jesus made has been told WHY. THE Lord’s meaning behind the task guides us. We learn that the tasks benefit us, because God loves us. We do not have a God who asked or sought burnt offerings and such. That’s a Demiurge, not the Trinity.
The error is temporal. Before Jesus, slave text, the Gospel begins friend text.
You cannot DIFFER FROM THE PAPAL views on Human Dignity that began with SPJPII and continue through Francis

 

[Maximus1]

So we use conjecture? It could be this other thing, to save a historical claim. Or at least move the goal posts till the next discovery? This does more harm than good. And misses the mark in terms of evangelization.

 

[Maximus1]

I used it quoting Pope Francis. Based upon his rationale for using it. Which is actually much more detailed than the single word.
We are dealing with death penalty and genocide here. And if historical, as you suggest, saddling God with it. That is what Pope Francis meant by saying VIOLENCE IN GOD’S NAME.

 

[o_mlly]

A “teaching” based on circumstances is by definition a prudential judgment.

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances…" (Cardinal Dulles)

And while such judgments need to be taken seriously, they do not oblige our assent.

“…To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.”

The prudence applies only to particulars of a case, not to the general principle.

The general principle that the teaching makes explicit is that in order to justify an execution, the circumstance that no non-lethal means are available to “defend and protect people’s safety.” The burden for that proof is on the governor who wills to execute.

As for whether a state’s right to use it is “ absolute ” depends on what that word means. It has never meant “ justifiable in every case ” simply because a state has the general right to apply it, but it does in fact mean absolute in the sense that it has always been - and continues to be - a right belonging to the state. Whether they abuse the right doesn’t go to the issue of whether they have the right.

It seems here you are agreeing with my post so I make no comment.

 

[Bernoulli]

God also chastened some people unworthily partaking in the eucharist even with deadly sickness, so they would repent (1 Cor 11):

30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

 

[Mrboast]

No absolute assertion was made. ?

I meant that the Church seems to have made an absolute statement, not you. The absoluteness of it all is what is shocking really.

 

[Ender]

This aspect of your analysis is confusing
“Application of Catholic Doctrine to changing circumstances.”
I can see modern genetics and criminology being that. I can see modern incarceration facilities being that. To an extent changing cultural values when they are positive.
But how about HUMAN DIGNITY? That doesn’t work does it?

My response was appropriate to the comment it was directed at, which was that capital punishment was “constrained over history by Church teaching in its permissible circumstances.” You raise a different objection.

HUMAN DIGNITY, once recognised, identified and our understanding becomes enhanced is an evolution toward an eternal truth.

I realize it is asserted we (as of 2018) have come to better understand man’s dignity. It just seems a bit unlikely that man’s dignity precludes capital punishment while at the same time its use is justified by Scripture. Those are mutually exclusive positions. No interpretation of man’s dignity can contradict Scripture.

 

[Ender]

The prudence applies only to particulars of a case, not to the general principle.

The general principle that the teaching makes explicit is that in order to justify an execution, the circumstance that no non-lethal means are available to “defend and protect people’s safety.”

No, this is not the general principle inasmuch as protection is not the primary objective of punishment and of itself cannot justify it. What justifies punishment is retribution, retributive justice.

We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment. (USCCB, 1980)

Protection is a valid objective, but it is a secondary one and does not determine the extent of the punishment. A punishment does not always need to protect, but it must always be just, and the justness of a punishment is determined by whether its severity is commensurate with the severity of the crime.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

Dei Verbatim makes it clear with it’s last phrase on the subject. If I recall it concludes," FOR THE SAKE OF SALVATION." Inspiration is inerrant in terms of the Genesis passages text with this qualifier. It isn’t a science or history text. AND NEVER WAS.
The authors of Genesis , and those the text were written to, know this.It derives from their tradition, cultural, language and other influences foreign to us that give the text meaning.
This view that somehow the Holy Spirit made hand puppets out of many authors taking dictation is absurd. You want modernist, there it is. Mature modernist.

The inspired text is absolutely inerrant. It can’t contain any error or falsehood. Not only on matters of faith and morals, but on everything.
I’m not saying that we should interpret every part of the Bible in a strict literal sense. Nor did I say that inspiration equals dictation. You are putting all of this into my mouth. That’s a strawman.
Clearly, we should interpret every biblical text according to the tradition, culture and language of the authors. That’s why we have exegesis to begin with. But that doesn’t mean we can allegorize every part of the Bible in wich there are difficulties.