S
SacredHeartFan
Guest
In NO way is the death penalty accpetable. A lifetime in prison works just as well.
- Status
S
SoCalRC
Guest
It is amazing to me how something relatively simple, at least in Cathoilc terms, gets so clouded with noise. I guess it just shows that responding to our base instincts is always easier than taking leaps of faith.
Consider. The Holy Father stood in St. Louis and, in his capacity as Pope, called for an end to the use of the death penalty in the US.
The Universal Catechism notes that licid uses of the death penalty are very rare, if not “practically non-existant”.
The Local Catechism, which actually takes precedence over the universal Catechism for US Catholics (provided it is approved,as ours is), instructs us that our expanded use of the death penalty is actually a causal factor in a culture of death. That is, supporting it is a form of complicency (albeit remote) with abortion and euthanasia (which are named in the explanation).
This leaves a devout Catholic with three choices:
- Agree with the Church and Obey
- Disagree with the Church, but obey out of our obligation to show proper religious reverence to the authority of the Pope (see LUMEN GENTIUM and the local and universal Catechism)
- Disagree with the Church and fail to obey
If the answer is yes, accept that you are in dissent and strive to address your dissent as instructed by the Church.
If the answer is no, accept that you are a Protestant and stop making the profession of faith (since you expressly reject it) or taking communion, since you have elected to seperate yourself from the body of the faithful.
I know it sounds harsh, but lets face it. If you have to pick and choose snippets and interpret them for yourself, or forward any argument to the effect that the Pope is in error or exceeding his authority in morality or the application of faith, you are already rejecting infallible Dogma, potentially rendering yourself anathema.
Attempting to rationalize your dissent in a court of ‘public opinion’, is expressly identified by the Church as an additional mortal sin, since you endeavoring to lead other Catholics away from the faith.
P
pnewton
Guest
You are correct. Cardinal Ratzinger said the exact thing and no one can claim he is a moral relativist. The reason why more than one opinion is allowed is two-fold. First, we are dealing with an application of moral teaching, not the moral teaching itself. Second, while an absolute truth exists as to what is the most perfect way, there are many areas in which God has not revealed Truth to His Church. In these areas, we may disagree.
P
pnewton
Guest
By Vicar of Christ, I assume you mean Pope Benedict XVI who has expressed the same sentiment that one is allowed their is room for disagreement before his pontificate? Also, the authority of the Pope does not extend to governing of nations are the making of laws. It also does not extend to matters of scientific opinion, be it the hard science or the social sciences.
I agree with your three choices and choose to agree with the Church and obey. I just do not agree that you speak correctly that the Church mandates that we oppose the death penalty in all cases. It seems in all matters official, we have to keep adding that one little caveat “rare” or refer to somthing said by the former Pope that is not binding as anything more than an opinion, thus was never written down and delivered to the Church as doctrine.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Actually, that is quite false. You are trying to take a private letter from the Cardinal on a seperate matter and twist it into something it is not.
The Cardinal was explaining only why rejection of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty, in of itself, does not rise to the level required for CIC 915 - the refusal of Holy Communion by the Ordinary.
Further, the Cardinal has not released an official copy of the letter and has publicly stated that it cannot be fully understood out of context and without the full text of his writings. But I notice that has not impacted your behavior.
What I always find interesting about this often repeated contortion is that the people doing it are seemingly never that sincere about then Ratzinger’s authority in any other respect. If you put weight on par with the Vicar of Christ and the written Catechisms from a snippet of private correspondance, is it reasonable to assume that you would put even more authority on a Doctrinal Note he prepared as Prefect listing moral non-negotiable issues in voting for Catholics? After all, as pope he has reiterated the same list in a Post-synodal apostolic exhortation!
I also find that it is a good example of the distinction between an effort at legitimate theology, and self serving rationalization. For example, take this article by Jimmy Akins:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp
There is strong reasons to disagree with his conclussions on capital punishment. For example, CCC 2309 specifically delegates moral determination to suitable authority, while CCC 2267 specifically seperates the death penalty from the general conditions of CCC 2266 and quotes Papal authority, and US juries do not decide the punishment of death on the same criteria of licid application that the Church teaches.
But although I find his reasoning poorly supported, he gets several things right. For example, he uses the same quote from the Cardinal, but is honest about both the context and purpose of the original text.
And, he notes up front that “deference is due” to the Pope’s prudential judgement. So, even in taking a position at odds with the Local Catechism and the Princes of the Church, he does not try to dishonestly represent Cardinal Ratzinger and he does not bypass our Dogmatic obligation to the authority of the Pope. So, although I find it uncompelling, particularly in light of the USCCB and Rome’s stated position, I have no reason to doubt his sincerity or personal attempt at honoring truth.
Call me a cynic, but people who twist an unpublished snippet to justify a position, while ignoring the true Vicar of Christ and the same Cardinal’s public writings and declarations as Prefect and his later declarations as Pope strike me as people making arguments of convenience.
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
SoCalRC,
I’m still interested in your comments about the principle of double effect (see post #66). I thought perhaps you missed my post.
Thanks,
VC
I’m still interested in your comments about the principle of double effect (see post #66). I thought perhaps you missed my post.
Thanks,
VC
S
SoCalRC
Guest
It is important to emphasis how utterly false and misleading this is. First and foremost, the quote does not say what pnewton contends. Then Cardinal Ratzinger merely pointed out that the death penalty is not an absolute teaching. Licit applications “may” be possible. Because of even the theoretical possibility of a licit application, dissent with regards to this teaching does not, in of itself, rise to the level of CIC 915. That is, public support of the death penalty does not represent sin so grievous that a Catholic should be refused Holy Communion for doing it.
Second, the Cardinal himself has warned not to read to much into the letter or take it out of context. No official copy has ever been released and the Cardinal’s representative publicly stated that the letter cannot even be properly understood without some additional, also unreleased, correspondance.
Third, we don’t have to take a snippet of private correspondance, twist it, and extrapolate then Cardinal Ratzinger’s point of view. In his public writings, and in his work as Prefect, he directly expressed his support for Pope John Paul II’s revelations on the matter.
Further, as Pope he has reiterated JPII’s application of the inalienable rights of the human person to right-to-life in his first papal encyclical.
Pope Benedict also publicly praised Phillipine President Macapagal-Arroyo for passing a law abolishing the death penalty (she presented him with a copy of the law in a leather binding and they posed together with it for the press).
And, of course, he reiterated JPII’s call for us to turn to non lethal alternatives during his US Visit.
So, on one hand we have the public statements of two popes, multiple encyclicals, the Universal Catechism, the Local Catechism, the seemingly unanimous support of the local princes of the Church (at the very least, the support of all the Bishop’s Conferences in the US), and the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church instructing us to obey.
On the other hand we have a snippet of personal correspondance, dishonestly represented, and alternative interpretations from individuals on written Holy Tradition and Scripture…
Like I said, when you get past the noise, it is pretty simple.
P
pnewton
Guest
How can a question be labeled as false (or true)? I was just wondering if you were referring to Pope Benedict or Pope JPII. The CCC, which is our best source allows an exception. I prefaced my quote of Benedict earlier with the caveat that he had no papal authority at the time, just as JP II has no ruling authority now.
I am waiting to see what the future holds with our Pope, if anything on the subject. Until then, I will stick, even if reluctantly to the the restriction in the CCC until something more definitive comes out. That is why I avoid the topic of justice at this time and stand on my belief that one can not safely incarcerate for life all criminals. I am free to have a differing opinion on this than the late Holy Father, especially as it is my area of expertise.
I have said before, I have yet to see anywhere the Church has given reason for the belief that modern society can safely house any and all prisoners for life. I guess it is just one of those things that it seems like we should be able to do. Yet even though it seems logical, I know of no one personally in the field that is knowledgable and believes it.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
I did miss it, sorry. I have to take DP discussions in moderation.
St. Augustine did not use the words, “Double Effect”, but he started to plant the seeds. In many ways, his theological interpreations were very literal. For example, he seems to have believed that we, as individuals have no right to self defense against unjust aggression because Jesus told us to “turn the other cheek”.
Our modern theological understanding of the same passage is a little different. We do not generally believe that Jesus was instructing us to be passive to evil, but giving us examples on how to resist evil without resorting to the evil of violence.
But in St. Augustine’s time, Christians were, by and large, literalists. For example, they took “no more of this” literallly, and were renouned pacifists, refusing to take up arms. Look at, say, Tertullian, who stated flatly, if you want to be Christian and are in the army, either quit the army, or be prepared to be martyred for not fighting.
Since Christians were no longer an oppressed minority but actually were the state, these positions were problematic, so St. Augustine reasoned the idea of competing moral impertives, and unintended results. He did not argue, we should have a right to self defense, he reasoned that we have an obligation to love and protect our neighbor. It actually is a bit odd by today’s standards, but he was seemingly saying, don’t lift a finger to stop an evil person from hurting you, but you have an obligation to protect your neighbor from evil because you are compelled to love him as yourself.
The important seed was seemingly that not all moral obligations are of equal weight. St. Thomas Aquinas took this much further. He did not use the words “double effect”, but clearly applied the principles in arguing that we do, in fact, have a right to self defense. We are pursing the greater of moral imperitives, so side effects are unintended… Taken to extremes, this has always been a troubling concept. Look at ectopic pregnancy, the Church stated in 1902 that, no, you cannot simply remove such a fetus unharmed and let nature take it’s course. But a theological argument was made that if we just take a piece of the tube and pretend that we are treating the tube, not aborting the fetus inside, it is just an unintended side effect…
The argument has always been considered “thin”, even by the scholar who first proposed it. And it has become even more dubious now, since the fetus is generally aborted before there is even a discernable medical problem to the tube… But we don’t have to debate the applicaiton, I only want to demonstrate that it has always been a slippery and abusable concept.
Still, it remains an important one. Sometimes there are competing moral impertives, and when we pursue the one that is viewed to be the higher priority, there can be unintended side effects. Now, let’s look at the Catechism of the Council of Trent:
Look at the last two sentences. We do discount the commandments, or the instructions of Christ, but we look to the higher purpose of the law, “For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life.”
Two competing moral imperitives, not killing, and fosteirng and protecting humanity at large. The higher purpose is served, so there is no intentional breaking of the commandment.
The next sentence is also important, “This purpose is fulfilled when…” The two things to note are that the Church’s position is that this sentence was true at that time and under those circumstances. Second, that the Church’s understanding of “legitimate authority” has changed.
If you look at the writings of that time, the most expressed belief is that rulers are rulers because they are favored by God. You won, you control, so you are favored by God. When Christian’s acheived power in Rome after several centuries, this seemed reasonable. But in time, the Church, via the living Magesterium, has come to view this as too simplistic and often incorrect. Particularly in the last 150 years, it has stressed the original teachings of Christ and reinforced, including via eccumenical council as well as mutiple encyclicals, that all human persons are given certain inalienable rights by God and no state which seeks to limit or take those rights, is licit. (For example, see CHRISTFIDELES LAICI, #38, which also quotes the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council).
So, our current understanding is that no state has the inherent right to kill, since our life is a gift from God. That means that the only licit application of the death penalty is a form of double effect. Like the Council of Trent, our higher moral calling to protect and promote human life leads to the undesired result of killing. However, unlike the time of the council of Trent, the Church now states that the purpose of the law is no longer best served by execution in the vast majority of situations.
I hope that is clearer.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
If you assign a statement to someone they did not make, “false” is a reasonable adjective.
Perhaps you should be more attentive. As noted, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote supportively of the Church’s position on the death penalty and now Pope Benedict has, in his capacity as Pope, reiterated it on more than one occasion.
In any matter of faith or morals, you are supposed to seek communion with the Church. That is, if you disagree with a forcefully held teaching, then the presumption is that your moral conscience is in error and you should, recognizing the Holy nature of the Church and its Gift of Authority, seek in good faith to correct it.
As far as expertise, personal testimonials are of limited value in assessing any public policy. Looking statistically, world wide, the Church’s position is better supported by the available evidence than yours. As is the Church’s stated concern that our use of the death penalty inevitably leads to the execution of some innocents, a grievous moral disorder in the Catholic faith.
P
pnewton
Guest
I know, and as I have already stated, I do. I just do not agree with every thing JP II was said apart from the area of faith and morals. Also, not every word uttered by the Pope in every context equates to "doctrine of the Church in the area of faith and morals. I will stick with the Catechism, Counciliar documents and encyclicals for what constitutes Church teaching.
C
Cuddy_Duck
Guest
E
Ender
Guest
Is it appropriate to be merciful in all situations? Is there an obligation for society to apply a merciful sentence (which is less severe than a just sentence would require) regardless of the crime and where the sinner understood the nature of his action and remained impenitent?
Ender
C
Cuddy_Duck
Guest
Matt 5:38 (When injured, turn the other cheek)
Matt 7 (to avoid judgment, stop passing judgment)
Luke 6:35-37 (love your enemy and do not condemn)
John 1 (the law was received through Moses; grace came through Jesus Christ)
Romans 7:4 (we are “dead” to the law through the body of Jesus Christ)
Romans 12:14-19 (vengeance is to be left to God)
Galatians 3:23-24 (by virtue of faith in Jesus, the law is no longer in charge)
V
Verbum_Caro
Guest
Sic et non. Thank you for elaborating on your earlier statements. Your analysis is interesting.
I understand. Thank you for following up.
Fascinating! Can you point me to a passage in Augustine?
Regarding your discussion of double effect, I found your thoughts interesting. Often the analysis focuses on the moral (or morally indifferent) act which has at least two effects: a good and a evil effect. Your approach instead seems to articulate an implicit corollary in the principle: that there is second moral good that is giving way to a higher moral good such that the violation of that second moral good produces the evil effect. Is that a fair reading? Please correct me if I’ve missed it, but I’ll continue with the assumption that I’ve understood you.
But when you say,
you seem to be leaving out one the requirements for the successful application of PDE: the good effect cannot be obtained through the evil.
Capital punishment runs afoul of the PDE in various ways, but lets focus on this one for now. Isn’t the killing (i.e. the violation of the moral imperative to “not kill”) the means by which one obtains the moral imperative of fostering and protecting humanity at large?
I’m afraid I don’t quite see the PDE at work in the passage of the Roman Catechism. Nor can I see how PDE can ever be used to justify capital punishment. To the best of my knowledge the Church and her theologians generally avoided an appeal to the PDE (as classically formulated) to justify capital punishment because it just isn’t applicable. Aquinas, in fact, draws a sharp distinction and seems to purposefully exclude his analysis of capital punishment from his analysis of the PDE.
I think it’s important to recognize that the PDE doesn’t apply to capital punishment because it allows for a more fruitful and cogent discussion. On the other hand, your thoughts about the authority of the state seem to be more on point.
Thanks for the discussion. I welcome your thoughts on the above.
VC
E
Ender
Guest
I’m sure those are all relevant passages but I’m not sure that the Church interprets them the way you do. Can you cite a Church document that discusses the questions I raised? I try not to quote the Bible myself unless I can also cite something that shows how the Church interprets the passage.
Ender
C
Cuddy_Duck
Guest
I would be very interested to learn how my interpretation and the interpretation I have learned in church is not im accordance with it. Could you give me some insight?
Can you? I am not sure I understand just exactly what type of document you are looking for.
Well in that case you will be well used to finding the interpretations to those quotes from the Bible I posted as well as the church documents that discuss your own question.
Won’t you?
In fact, why have you not already done so?
S
SoCalRC
Guest
But you don’t. Look at your comment about wait and see.
Ignoring for a moment that one would have to either be woefully ignorant of Cardinal Ratzinger’s long body of work as a theologian or downright delusional to expect a change in Church policy with regards to the death penalty, consider the implications of your comment.
You’ll wait, presumably because a new Pope might signifcantly alter the Church’s position. To even consider this possibility, one must presume that the last Pope, along with the overwhelming majority of Catholic Bishops where wrong, and remain wrong, along with the current Pope who has, despite your seeming ignorance of it, spoken out forcefully against the death penalty both before and after becoming Pope. Remember, when the college is in communion with the Pope, it “best represents the infallibility of the Church”.
Anyone who is waiting for the Church to ‘come to its senses’ and adopt their ‘correct’ position, most assuredly, is not following part I of the universal catechism, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, or the Pastoral Constitution of the Church. Again, it’s simple:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
One truly accepts and believes in the Holy and Apostolic nature of the Church, or one does not.
B
bbentrup
Guest
"goofyjim:
bbentrup:
I’m not trying to make you accept the death penalty, at least in the general sense. I was making a relatively minor correction of what you wrote. You wrote “neither side is wrong.” You should have written “the church does not teach which side is right [given a set of circumstances]”. God knows that in a given set of circumstances it is indeed either morally wrong or morally right to take the life. But neither side can prove the other is wrong, so the church must take a neutral position on the theological grounds. On pastoral grounds, the church says it is nigh on impossible to come up with a set of circumstances where application of the death penalty is the correct course. Do we agree now?
B
bbentrup
Guest
Cuddy, it is impossible to have a discussion about the legitimacy of the death penalty before recognizing that the whole concept is subservient to defending life of all parties involved. You seem to disagree, and thus there is no point in discussing this further.
- Status