Both EV 56 and 2267 are out of the context of everything the Church has previously taught, but this is not a point that is necessary to discuss. As I said earlier, 2267 says nothing whatever about justice so - in the context of this discussion - what it says doesn’t matter since it does not address the question being asked.
What? you posted about a response I made to Ender about changing interpretations over time by the church, is that what you are referring to?
Your statement sounds contridictory. 2267 is not prudental at all, the decision to confirm conditions are met to allow capital punishment is prudential but that is not 2267. 2267 lays out certain conditions as “only possible way of effectively defending human lives”, “guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined”,"non-lethal means[are inadaquate]". It is not prudental to dimiss these issues. It is prudential if this criteria is met.
Which is a prudential judgement!
The key words are “can be” many given time repent their sins and return to god. The dead do not repent their sins. Additionally, no human justice system approaches perfection, many have serious flaws
All through the OT mass killings were done to wipe out sin and it simply did not work. In the NT the mass killings are gone.
God interverned to protect Cain under the same conditions could god have errored? , Jesus told Peter to “Peter to leave his sword in its sheath”(2262) was that another error?
I have never found a distinction between Cardinal Dulles and the catechism. I do not believe the postings here hold that standard.
Not only that but we are not Bible only Christians.
To a degree this is certainly true. What is undeniable, however, is that the Church has always held that capital punishment for certain crimes meets the obligation for a commensurate punishment, and this is independent of questions about protection and rehabilitation.
The issue the OP raised is about the relation of justice to the death penalty; considerations of repentance are not relevant to that discussion.
Pretty much everything the Church has written comes after the NT was written, so if the Church sees fit to reference the OT then we cannot ignore that reference simply because the NT is the fulfillment of the OT. Besides, the Church does not base her support of capital punishment on Mosaic Law or the battle of Jericho.
No, it’s another situation entirely that is not relevant to a State’s obligation to impose just punishments for crimes.
The Catholic Church teaches that it is ok to use the death penalty if that is the only way to keep that person from killing more people.I think the The Death Penalty should be abolished. Period.
There are other more ethical means of punishment whereby individuals can pay for their sins.
My opinion is so because too many people on Death Row are still being pardoned when new evidence comes to light showing them as wrongly accused. What of individuals that may have needlessly been sentenced and put to death when they were not guilty??
And even those who are guilty, would they not be better punished with life imprisonment to reflect on what they have done, and face their subsequent calling to repentance and then final judgement?
Who are we to play God?
“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” - Friedrich Nietzsche,
A punishment is ethical if it is just and the Church has always supported the idea that capital punishment is in fact a just punishment for certain crimes. She teaches that today. By allowing its use even theoretically she must believe it is just or she would ban it unconditionally.
Rehabilitation (repentance, atonement…) is a valid objective of all punishment, but it is a secondary objective. The primary objective is justice.
The State has been given its authority by God and exercises that authority in his name. Again, the Church has always taught that the State has the right to impose the death penalty.
This is a poor argument for using the death penalty: we may execute a person to prevent a crime that we can’t execute him for committing. It is a very skewed perspective of what justice really is to reserve the greater punishment for crimes that might be committed and use the lesser punishment for crimes that have actually been committed.
Given that morality does not change with time or place, if capital punishment was ever a just punishment then it is just today. A moral teaching can never become outdated.
That is exactly right, the Church never taught death as a required punishment it was an acceptable method of punishment which means it can be morally neutral under some conditions
I don’t think this is correct; I think that was exactly what the Church taught and the Catechism of Trent seems pretty clear on this point.
When one executes he violates Genesis 9:6 while he upholds Genesis9:6 yet the teaching goes on to say “The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life”. Which directly synchronize that writing and today’s writing.
The Commandment being spoken about there is the fifth commandment: thou shalt not kill (murder), and the end of that commandment is the preservation of human life. Genesis 9:6, however, speaks of the command to be followed when someone violates the fifth commandment. This is why Trent says that executing the murderer is in “paramount obedience” with this commandment, because no other means so clearly demonstrates the *“enormity of this sin”, *and of all the remedies for it *“the most efficacious is to form a just conception of the wickedness of murder.”