F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
That is because he removed the offending posts.
- Status
O
o_mlly
Guest
I [Avery Cardinal Dulles] have rather tentatively proposed a third rationale for concluding that the death penalty should rarely if ever be imposed today. The classical tradition took the view that the state stood somewhere between God and society. The rulers were authorized to wield quasi-divine power as God’s ministers. This is, I think, the view of the New Testament authors: not only Paul, but Peter and John as well.
The classical vision of the state has fallen on hard times, perhaps because of the outrageous abuses of governmental power by the Nazis, Stalinists, and Maoists of the past century. For better or for worse, the state in our secular democratic societies is seen as a creature and instrument of the people, bound only to carry out the will of the majority. In a society so governed, it becomes difficult to see the death sentence as representing the divine order of justice. Rather, it is seen as implementing the sovereign will of the people, whose appetite for vengeance grows with what it feeds on.
Moderates such as Charles Rice, Ralph McInery, and Leon Billig seem to find merit in my proposal, without perhaps endorsing everything I say. The reservations of William F. Buckley, Jr., to which Mary Kochan alludes, show the need to maintain key elements in the classical tradition. I stand with Buckley and Kochan in holding that the state has a moral responsibility to uphold the order of justice and that the law has a pedagogical function. I only question whether the execution of a criminal is perceived as representing divine justice in a society like our own.
“Catholicism and Capital Punishment”.
Copyright (c) 2001 First Things 115 (August/September 2001): 7-16
Lastly, the spectacle of the execution of Timothy McVeigh brings to mind Cardinal Dulles’ description of an objection to the death penalty which he thinks has “some probable force”: “Another objection observes that the death penalty often has the effect of whetting an inordinate appetite for revenge rather than satisfying an authentic zeal for justice. By giving in to a perverse spirit of vindictiveness or a morbid attraction to the gruesome, the courts contribute to the degradation of the culture, replicating the worst features of the Roman Empire in its period of decline.”
Charles E. Rice
Notre Dame Law School
South Bend, Indiana
O
o_mlly
Guest
How are the arguments against “the problem caused by Evangelium Vitae” as **imprudent **and the death pentaly different than those launched against Humanae Vitae and hormonal birth control as imprudent?
The tradition of the Church
… Medieval scholars … universally disapproved of menstrual intercourse, though their condemnations varied in gravity. The more common opinion was that sex during menstruation was a mortal sin. …The only exception, made by St Thomas, was where menstruation was prolonged. In this case, he held that sexual intercourse was justified because the women could be presumed sterile, and the slight risk of misconceiving a child was outweighed by the husband’s conjugal rights. Note that the right here must be a right to take pleasure or to obtain sexual relief rather than a right to procreate! This itself is in contradiction to the teaching of St Gregory. …
Reversal of this teaching
The history of the reversal of the traditional teaching is as follows:
because it was well known that this is what the Pope intended,
then this is the significance that should be assigned to his decree.
Convoluted and contrived? I think so.
webspace.webring.com/people/up/pharsea/Contraception.html
The tradition of the Church
… Medieval scholars … universally disapproved of menstrual intercourse, though their condemnations varied in gravity. The more common opinion was that sex during menstruation was a mortal sin. …The only exception, made by St Thomas, was where menstruation was prolonged. In this case, he held that sexual intercourse was justified because the women could be presumed sterile, and the slight risk of misconceiving a child was outweighed by the husband’s conjugal rights. Note that the right here must be a right to take pleasure or to obtain sexual relief rather than a right to procreate! This itself is in contradiction to the teaching of St Gregory. …
Reversal of this teaching
The history of the reversal of the traditional teaching is as follows:
…
1853 and 1867 The Holy Office indicated that those exploiting “safe periods” should not be disturbed, pending further study. …
1880 Rome allowed that such a method could be used as an alternative to “onanism” but it was not recommended.
1930 Pope Pius XI referred to avoiding births by natural means [Casti Connubii], but did not elucidate what might count as natural.
Contrary to the teaching of Pope Gregory the Great, this encyclical also taught that the mutual society of the spouses was the chief reason and purpose of marriage, developing teaching explicit in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It also suggested that: “… in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as … the cultivating of mutual love”
c1928 reliable methods of identifying the woman’s “safe period” were developed.
1932 and 1933 Books representing such “rhythm methods” as “natural birth control” were given imprimaturs.
1951 Pope Pius XII publicly referred to “the rhythm method” as licit within marriage.
1965, the Second Vatican Council taught [Gaudiem et Spes] that: …
This again is a change. The issue was previously not whether some practice was natural or un-natural, but whether it was intentional; not whether some situation was artificial but whether it was accidental … yet Paul VI goes on to say:1853 and 1867 The Holy Office indicated that those exploiting “safe periods” should not be disturbed, pending further study. …
1880 Rome allowed that such a method could be used as an alternative to “onanism” but it was not recommended.
1930 Pope Pius XI referred to avoiding births by natural means [Casti Connubii], but did not elucidate what might count as natural.
Contrary to the teaching of Pope Gregory the Great, this encyclical also taught that the mutual society of the spouses was the chief reason and purpose of marriage, developing teaching explicit in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It also suggested that: “… in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as … the cultivating of mutual love”
c1928 reliable methods of identifying the woman’s “safe period” were developed.
1932 and 1933 Books representing such “rhythm methods” as “natural birth control” were given imprimaturs.
1951 Pope Pius XII publicly referred to “the rhythm method” as licit within marriage.
1965, the Second Vatican Council taught [Gaudiem et Spes] that: …
Performance of “Marriage Acts”
“fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude”. Again contradicting the puritanical teaching of Pope St Gregory.
In July 1968, Pope Paul VI taught in his Encyclical “Humanae Vitae”, that“fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude”. Again contradicting the puritanical teaching of Pope St Gregory.
The Marriage Act has a “natural adaptation to the expression and strengthening of the union of husband and wife”.
This seems to be the first clear reference to the “uniative” purpose of sexual intercourse, no previous authority is cited by the Pope.
“In any use whatever of marriage there must be no impairment of its natural capacity to procreate human life.”
This is a change from Pope St Gregory’s teaching that marriage is positively about procreation, not negatively contrary to it.
and implicitly ruled that hormonal contraception was artificial and therefore illicit.
“… an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life … contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman … Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation: whether as an end or as a means.”
Paul VI: “Humanae Vitae” #14]
This seems to be the first clear reference to the “uniative” purpose of sexual intercourse, no previous authority is cited by the Pope.
“In any use whatever of marriage there must be no impairment of its natural capacity to procreate human life.”
This is a change from Pope St Gregory’s teaching that marriage is positively about procreation, not negatively contrary to it.
and implicitly ruled that hormonal contraception was artificial and therefore illicit.
“… an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life … contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of man and of woman … Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation: whether as an end or as a means.”
Paul VI: “Humanae Vitae” #14]
" … the Church … considers it lawful for married people to take advantage of the infertile period … the married couple rightly use a faculty provided them by nature … It cannot be denied that … the married couple … are … perfectly clear in their intention to avoid children and wish to make sure that none will result."
[Paul VI: “Humanae Vitae” #16]
It is pretty clear that an “intention to avoid children” is identical with an intention “to prevent procreation”. …
The crucial factor that is taken to make “hormonal family planning” illicit is the supposed “un-natural” nature of the contraceptive pill: which consists of natural hormones. Pope Paul VI supposedly made this clear when he contrasted “the rhythm method” with “those means which directly exclude conception” using the following words: “In the former, married couples rightly use a facility provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process” [HV#16]. It is difficult to see how “hormonal family planning” can be said to “obstruct the natural development of the generative process”. The only process that is “obstructed” (and even then, this word is not accurate) is ovulation, and Paul VI does not teach that to do this is sinful. It is amusing to note that Humanae Vitae never explicitly states that hormonal contraception is “artificial” and so belongs to the category that is condemned. It is just that everyone took it for granted, that:
[Paul VI: “Humanae Vitae” #16]
It is pretty clear that an “intention to avoid children” is identical with an intention “to prevent procreation”. …
The crucial factor that is taken to make “hormonal family planning” illicit is the supposed “un-natural” nature of the contraceptive pill: which consists of natural hormones. Pope Paul VI supposedly made this clear when he contrasted “the rhythm method” with “those means which directly exclude conception” using the following words: “In the former, married couples rightly use a facility provided them by nature. In the latter they obstruct the natural development of the generative process” [HV#16]. It is difficult to see how “hormonal family planning” can be said to “obstruct the natural development of the generative process”. The only process that is “obstructed” (and even then, this word is not accurate) is ovulation, and Paul VI does not teach that to do this is sinful. It is amusing to note that Humanae Vitae never explicitly states that hormonal contraception is “artificial” and so belongs to the category that is condemned. It is just that everyone took it for granted, that:
because it was well known that this is what the Pope intended,
then this is the significance that should be assigned to his decree.
**Such an assumption is imprudent. **
webspace.webring.com/people/up/pharsea/Contraception.html
E
Ender
Guest
There is simply no valid connection between Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae. There is no argument to be made about capital punishment because of what has been said about contraception if for no other reason than the teaching on contraception is a moral doctrine to which Catholics are obligated to assent while the comments on capital punishment are prudential opinions where assent is not necessary. If you want to argue against capital punishment you need to talk about capital punishment, not contraception.
Evangelium Vitae caused a problem because it represents a complete abandonment of the traditional position the Church had held since her creation and replaced it with a personal opinion. It has no basis in Church teaching and created a situation where people on both sides have a convincing claim to being right. The teaching cannot stand as it is now and at some point the issue will have to be readdressed and finally resolved.
Ender
B
Brendan
Guest
Good, +Dulles correctly recognizes that the (Divinely Inspired) authors of the N.T. recognized that the State stood between God and Man as an agent of God’s will.
+Dulles then notes that certain segments of the population have abandoned the view held by the authors of the N.T. (No surprise there, a LOT of our culture have abandoned what the messages the N.T. authors have given us.
+Dulles then notes (correctly) that our society does not recognize the Divine Justice in the execution of the criminal. That is certainly true.
I wonder what your point is in posting this though. At no point does Cardinal Dulles state that his own belief is that the State is NOT an agent for Divine Justice. He is too great of a priest and theologian to deny a Biblical teaching
And again, is that supposed to be a denial that McVeigh, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, used the experience of death row to bring about conversion and repentance?
E
Ender
Guest
I have been very sparing in quoting opinions other than from Church sources, a category which includes Cardinal Dulles, but since you quote Charles Rice of Notre Dame, let me respond with a quote from that same article from one of the writers Dulles approvingly cites.
The death penalty for murder is the command of God. Additionally, it serves the law’s appropriate pedagogical function, teaching that human life is sacred. God’s intention to establish strict justice in response to murder is meant to protect the truth of the sacred nature of human life. It is precisely because human beings are made in the image of God that murderers are to be put to death. (Mary Kochan)
Ender
L
Lycorth
Guest
If we want a state that sees itself as being an agent of God and can therefore perform just executions, then we should be supporting a Catholic Confessional State, instead of amoral secularism, which cannot perform any act justly.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I see close parallels in the arguments. Both argue the popes are out of their realm of moral authority – hormonal contraception being a matter of scientific inquiry, and frequency of death peantly imposition being a matter of state prudence.
People on both sides? Can you name any bishops in communion with Rome who advance your arguments?
O
o_mlly
Guest
“The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position” (emphasis mine).…I wonder what your point is in posting this though. At no point does Cardinal Dulles state that his own belief is that the State is NOT an agent for Divine Justice. He is too great of a priest and theologian to deny a Biblical teaching
Catholicism & Capital Punishment
by Cardinal Avery Dulles
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I think o_mlly is having trouble from differentiating the just application of capital punishment from the way it is applied in the United States.
The death penalty, when applied justly, is just. It can not be otherwise as the Church has upheld this from the past.
I agree that the application in the States is problematic in most cases and may not be applied justly but that does not change the fact that the death penalty, when applied justly, is just.
B
Brendan
Guest
Ahh, so the bishops (and Cardinal Dulles) do not belive there is anything instrincially UNJUST about the Death Penalty. Thier only objection is that “on balance, it does more harm than good”
Is that your take as well?
O
o_mlly
Guest
I feel compelled to link Lyncorth to vincenter.org/95/surlis.html.
O
o_mlly
Guest
And? Are you simply saying the obvious: if it’s just, then it is just? Not much to build on in this post. I think ByzCath is having trouble reading 2267 with an open mind.
JPII addresses within his realm of authority the virtue of justice as it applies to application of the death penalty in western society. And yet, I continue to get arguments that JPII ought not to go there as if teaching on the constraints of justice relative to the state’s right to execute is not moral teaching but merely prudential.
Benedict XVI’s often quoted comment differentiating the death penalty to abortion and euthanasia in this thread is misinterpreted as alluding that 2267 has a “prudential component.” If you parse the pontiff’s words, I think you will see he admits that “applying” or abolishing the state’s right to execute is an open question saying nothing about “frequency.” The Pope does not acknowledge that Catholics cannot dismiss 2267 as just another (uninformed?) man’s opinion, but suggests that the state’s right to execute is an open question, not an eternal law. The Church is studying the issue. Stay tuned. For the first 300 years of Christianity, Christians did not support the death penalty or just wars.
I’ve worked in the federal penal system consisting of high, medium and low security facilities for the past ten years ministering to male inmates. I’m no expert but I know more than those who watch Babylon 5 (what is that?) or MSNBC’s specials about life in incarceration. These men have a greater fear of contracting hepatitis than being maimed or murdered by fellow inmates.
Murders in prison have occurred on my watch. The inmate-murderers are not in federal prison for murder. Murder is normally a violation of state law, tried in state courts and the guilty reside in state prisons. Only murders committed on federal property or involving interstate activity are tried in federal court. The majority of federal inmates are drug dealers. Their crimes would have never warranted the death penalty. So much for the argument that increasing the frequency of the death penalty would “protect guards and prisoners.”
But, as JPII I think understood, murder in prison occurs not because the state of penal technology is deficient but that society is unwilling to fund the system adequately. Two-man cells are occupied by three; guards and staff numbers have been cut back, transfers from high to lower security levels occur for economic reasons putting guards and prisoners at higher risk. Society has an obligation in justice to provide for the safety of all its citizens – even those in prison. By implication, in 2267 JPII charges society given that the technolgy exists (and it does) to treat all its citizen justly – a moral question.
The underlying problem JPII addresses is that to execute for expediency or because society is unwilling to commit sufficient resources to its penal system are unjust – and that also is a moral issue; not prudential.
The fundamental problem is societal. Why do we have so many incarcerated? One out of one hundred U.S. citizens is in jail. Is it just to increase the frequency of the death penalty to reduce the numerator of that ratio? JPII says, no.
E
Ender
Guest
Saint Ambrose (Bishop of Milan), Saint Innocent I, Saint Augustine of Hippo (Doctor of the Church), Innocent III, Pius IV, Pius V, Saint Robert Cardinal Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church), Cardinal Charles Borromeo, Saint Alphonsus Liguori (Doctor of the Church), Gregory IX, Leo XIII, Pius X, Pius XII, Cardinal Dulles.
I had to leave off Saint Thomas Aquinas and some others because you only asked for bishops but I think it’s still an impressive list.
Ender
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
If something has been ruled just by the Church in the past then it is still just in the present.
Hebrews 13:7-8
7 Remember you leaders who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
I see you still have trouble with ad hominem attacks and issue dealing with people who disagree with you.
I would say that you have trouble understanding what the Church actually teaches and differentiating that from personal opinion.
The main question in this thread is whether or not the Death Penalty is just and the answer is when it is justly applied it is just, period. I am sorry you have trouble understanding.
E
Ender
Guest
This is incorrect. Perhaps the most serious problem with JPII’s comments on the death penalty is that they completely ignore the demand of justice which is the primary objective of all punishment.
Well, he didn’t say anything at all about justice and he certainly accepted the right of the state to execute criminals, none of which changes the fact that his comments - as Cardinal Dulles explicitly stated - were prudential.
It was his comment as Cardinal that "There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty" that strongly suggests, along with other indicators, that 2267 is prudential.
I think it is more eternal than you suspect given that the Church has stated that the teaching of Genesis 9:5-6 will be true for all time.
There were a number of the Early Fathers who opposed the death penalty but I don’t believe there was a Church position on the issue until 405 when Innocent I said: " *Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God?" *
The issue is moral but what JPII expressed was his opinion; it is not doctrine.
Ender
O
o_mlly
Guest
Then you should have left off Cardinal Dulles, as well.
As for St. Ambrose, "Quoting St. Ambrose, the Pope (JP II) writes: “God, who preferred the correction, rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be pun-ished by the execution of another act of homicide.”
“Evangelium Vitae (Gospel of Life): Encyclical Letter on the Value and Inviolability of Human Life.” Pope John Paul II. March 25, 1995, Chapter 1, Section 9.
Since your first reference did not meet the requirement, I have not checked the others.
Still, the list does not include one present day bishop. The Church is the living Mystical Body of Christ. Times change; teachings are clarified and amplified. Why do you suppose no present bishops advocate your position?
O
o_mlly
Guest
T
toufell
Guest
The LORD is good to those who wait for him, to the soul that seeks him.
It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD.
anyhow good topic
zhu zhu pets video
It is good that one should wait quietly for the salvation of the LORD.
anyhow good topic
zhu zhu pets video
- Status