Church Teaching on Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What you are saying is we are trapped in the past I sense and that the theology involving Man’s dignity is locked into antiquity. Knowing it is incomplete, we are stuck with it. ( So off with his head?).
Reminds me of that old Sean Connery movie where the blind monk says," there is nothing new, only sublime recapitulation."
But your post just makes clear, you do not accept the elevation of mans dignity the church recognises. Which if I knew nothing about your opinion, that would have been likely apparent.
Hard to imagine mans dignity was appreciated and valued by the church in antiquity as now. The state tortured and crucified people . They burned them to the stake. All sorts of colorful methods of human torture. Do you really think there was no room to evolve?
How about this evolution. Love your enemies. Christ certainly said it. To this day I see virtually no evolution towards it.
No sense having a synod till people are truly ready to accept it.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s not conjecture. That’s an historical theory. There’s evidence in favor of it.
 
Last edited:
It is a scripture based theory. History, from a spiritual not a history book
 
Ender said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, there are multiple general principles to be followed in this act’s circumstance font. These principles are not in conflict, nor does one principle hold supremacy over the others. All circumstances must be found good to justify the execution.
Ender said:
Protection is a valid objective, but it is a secondary one …
Click to expand...
Not according to Trent’s Catechism:
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 (Catechism Council of Trent).
Click to expand...
Retributive, restorative, and distributive justice are all facets of the same virtue and are necessarily internally consistent. One facet does not compete with another in the proper expression of the virtue itself, justice. To elevate one facet as controlling over and above the others is merely to express one’s own whim (unless Magisterial in its source).
 
Very well said. Fair trial is far from a monolith. I have participated and advocated in trials and my experience is at best, you hope for fair.
 
The greedy one who lied when he failed to hand over his Capital and betrayed the commune where each according to his needs etc?
 
We would have to ask the Holy Spirit. I am not competent to do that and get a response. At least yet.
The Holy Spirit killing is not a civil authority.
 
You mean the Holy Spirit is as flawed as we are? I am trying to find a way to interpret what you said and that not being true
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
What you are saying is we are trapped in the past I sense and that the theology involving Man’s dignity is locked into antiquity
Click to expand...
Since this revelation only occurred in 2018, some of those born in your antiquity are still barely able to walk. Few things become antiques in under two years. Still, it is true that our understanding of man’s dignity did originate in antiquity and stems from God’s declaration that man is made in His image. It seems a little lost on people that He said that as the explanation for why a murderer should lose his own life. I’m pretty sure His understanding of man’s dignity isn’t incomplete.
But your post just makes clear, you do not accept the elevation of mans dignity the church recognises.
Click to expand...
I’m just not sure how it gets elevated higher than “made in God’s image.”
 
Ender said:
Since this revelation only occurred in 2018, some of those born in your antiquity are still barely able to walk.
Click to expand...
Well, not 2018. The teaching of man’s dignity is not novel at all. And the teaching of the state’s duty to protect the innocent was codified as early as1566 in the first Church’s first catechism, perhaps earlier.
 
o_mlly said:
No, there are multiple general principles to be followed in this act’s circumstance font. These principles are not in conflict, nor does one principle hold supremacy over the others. All circumstances must be found good to justify the execution.
Click to expand...
Punishment has four objectives: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection. One of them is primary, and that one is retribution. The only objective that every punishment must satisfy is that it is just, and justness is determined by two things: that the severity of the punishment is commensurate with the severity of the crime, and that its application not cause more problems than it solves. The first is the moral obligation required by basic justice, the second is a prudential judgment about the foreseeable effects of its use.
Ender: Protection is a valid objective, but it is a secondary one …
Click to expand...
Not according to Trent’s Catechism:
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 (Catechism Council of Trent).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Trent listed the two objectives but did not prioritize them. By contrast, the current catechism does:

2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

Whatever else may be true there is no reasonable argument that preventing an offense from occurring can in any way redress whatever disorder was caused by a crime already committed. Protection is clearly not primary.
To elevate one facet as controlling over and above the others is merely to express one’s own whim (unless Magisterial in its source).
Click to expand...
That Magisterial source would be section 2266 of the current catechism.
 
Last edited:
Understand their dignity?
It is human dignity! It is a subject area involving a human beings value. Everyone has value regardless of actions or status.
At the other extreme, the unborn have value. The idea is that it is a basic value one has being human. Their life has value. Their eternal sould has value. Their path to salvation has value.
People have the right to earn a living and to own the tools to make a living. The idea of human dignity crosses over to Catholic social policy as well. It requires countries to take in refugees unless and until they authentically cannot afford it. It even affects private property. Ownership is not absolute for Catholics. S concept that draws on Genesis, as we were essentially gardeners in God’s garden.
People would have thought you nuts in the first century if you raised this. Some would think you nuts now.
And in all times, the honest reaction of most Catholics to loving your enemy is ," are you kidding."
 
The Bible does not say you must give an eye for an eye, it says NO MORE THAN.
AND
Jesus said love your enemy. Pray for those who persecute you. Turn the other cheek. If a man takes your garment offer him your cloak as well.
Jesus said all these things and people seem to ignore it wanting eye for an eye.
 
Neither. The theology involving dignity is directed at us. It is our consideration with respect to each other.
The Holy Spirit is above my paygrade
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
The Bible does not say you must give an eye for an eye, it says NO MORE THAN.
Click to expand...
There are two forms of unjust punishments: those that are too severe and those that are too lenient. The state has a duty to apply penalties that are comparable to the crime, neither more nor less.
Jesus said love your enemy. Pray for those who persecute you. Turn the other cheek. If a man takes your garment offer him your cloak as well.
Click to expand...
There is s significant difference between what is required and forbidden individuals and what is the duty of states. Your comments apply to the individual, who is forbidden to avenge injury; they do not apply to states, which have the obligation to do so.
 
Last edited:
The states obligation no longer extends to capital punishment. Not if you are Catholic.
 
Our fallen nature continues to require retribution because the tenants of our faith have this far not been followed. The consolation is retribution without barbaric homicide. An incremental step toward salvation.
 
Our criminal justice system continues less Capital punishment. Catholics can no longer support that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top