E
Ender
Guest
They are saying different things; Dulles himself agrees with Thompson that the death penalty ought not be used and each of us is entitled to make that choice for ourselves.OK, so you agree with Dulles, but not with Thompson.![]()
My comments have been directed at uncovering what it is that the Church teaches and the nature of those teachings. Dulles explicitly and Ratzinger and the USCCB implicitly agree that the section in the catechism on the death penalty is prudential - it is an opinion. This claim is either true or false in fact and, while this may not affect one’s opinion about the use of the death penalty, this claim is not an opinion, it is a judgment.
You may believe that the state should never execute anyone but it seems rather clear that the Church teaches that the state has the moral right to do so.I don’t agree that the state has the right to deprive anyone of life…to me that is consistent with pro-life.
It is the state alone that has both the right and the obligation to inflict retribution, certainly the individual has no such right.I see retribution as not belonging to the state…
I am not challenging your opinion that the death penalty should never be used; you are entitled to hold that opinion. What I am trying to do is clarify the nature of the Church’s statement on executions: that it too is an opinion and that my choice to disagree with it is as well founded morally as your choice to accept it.Not sure how many times I must state my OPINION, having you trying to convince me and others…otherwise. Can we leave it at that, or do you have a compulsion to show me that my opinion is wrong?
Ender