You need to read things more critically.*In the short span of time between the first edition of the text and the final official Latin version issued in 1997, the section pertaining to the death penalty was significantly revised. *(Archbishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)
Not if the teachings are prudential.
Does prudential mean “iffy?”
“If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended.” - St. Thomas Aquinas
But the Ordinary Magisterium can be used to “warn against…dangerous opinions that can lead to error”, and, according to Benedict/Ratzinger, “A proposition contrary to these teachings can be qualified as…in the prudential order, rash or dangerous and therefore cannot be safely taught.”
No, it’s a bit more precise than “whatever I don’t agree with.”
I’ll start by recognizing that whatever Aquinas said is likely to be right.
And I have recognized this as well. This (times when capital punishment would be harmful), however, explains the exception to the rule. I think also you have a limited view of what the “common good” means, because it means a good deal more than simply maintaining order in society. The term is actually much broader and includes the order of justice:*When the second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church appeared in 1997, some readers were surprised to discover that the purpose of capital punishment as restitution of public order had been removed from the discussion *(Archbishop Wilton Gregory)
The protection of society is one of the four valid objectives of all punishment but it is not the primary objective and while it does confer a good on society it of itself does not determine the proper degree of punishment. Only retribution does that; this is why the degree of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime, not because protection requires it but because retribution does.
This is also true. We are not at liberty to simply disregard prudential teachings but to give them their due consideration. Nonetheless,Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Dulles)
1906 By common good is to be understood **“the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily.”**26 The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three essential elements:
You wouldn’t be dissenting from the actual Church teaching, but you would be holding a position that “cannot be safely taught”. Why do that when one can agree with the prudential judgment of the Church’s hierarchy in safety? While disagreement can be done, why do something the Church says is “dangerous”? If Christ told you that something you held was “dangerous” and advised you to change, would you not listen to him? And this on a topic that has been repeated many times. The Church and Christ are one after all.
Ratzinger was writing in reference to the war in Iraq, not what was written in Evangelium Vitae or the Catechism. So it seems that he was thinking more in terms of using the outlines given by the Church (including documents from Pope John Paul II) to come to a prudential decision rather than disagreeing with prudential judgments made in the outlines themselves.
Say do you know where to get some of Canisius’ works in English? I can’t find anywhere online.
Try here:Say do you know where to get some of Canisius’ works in English? I can’t find anywhere online.
One of the greatest sources of confusion in discussing the topic of capital punishment is in understanding the terms used in the context in which they are applied. This especially: *“The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” *(2266)
How can it be a position that cannot be safely taught if it is the very position the church herself taught for two millennia?
Most of the assertions being made have nothing to do with the accuracy of a prudential judgment; they go to the level of doctrine. Much of what I have contested are invalid arguments about capital punishment and those are very separate from the question of whether it is or is not advisable to use capital punishment.
If this was so then he would not have included capital punishment along with war in his letter. There is no reason to believe this was mere inadvertence on his part.
True, but I have not yet met anyone who limits his position in this manner. Pretty much everyone tries to find doctrinal reasons for rejecting capital punishment … and that’s where the disagreements start.
After due account is taken of extenuating circumstances etc etc, yes, pretty much. That is clearly what Gen 9:6 says and it is what the church taught.
Well you’re wrong, the Church says you’re wrong, and the Church has never said you’re right (putting your own spin on Aquinas doesn’t show that the Church taught what you claim it did).
How many citations must I provide? I’ve already cited three Doctors of the Church who said exactly this, one of whom included it in a catechism that was approved by pope Clement XIII. I understand your personal opposition to capital punishment but your familiarity with what the church actually taught about it is a bit thin. The Papal States had its own official executioner and one person carried out over 500 executions. The Vatican itself had the death penalty on its books until 1969. There may be practical reasons to oppose capital punishment (which I believe is why the last two popes opposed it) but there are no doctrinal reasons against its use.
Of course. But it isn’t the only condition necessary. There’s more to the common good than just justice and stability.
Because it would be disagreeing with the position of nearly every member of the college of Bishops about a topic that has been repeated over and over, seemingly in disregard of the judgment of the Magisterium which exercises the teaching authority of God.
Yet you imply that there are very few situations where it is advisable not to use capital punishment.
Well Bl. JPII seemed to intervene frequently in particular US capital punishment cases.
