Does this mean that we should not read the Bible? It looks like perhaps we should also not read the Catechism. This thread has clearly demonstrated that it also is open to personal interpretation. Isn’t all text open to personal interpretation?
I agree, though God also knows what is in our hearts. He knows the punishment that we would administer if we held this position of authority. Would it be Justice or Justice and Mercy?
So we’ve done better here?
Any links to these speeches?
Yeah, same goes for passages in the (inerrant! divinely inspired!) Bible. I don’t think anyone has explained yet why we ought to be all aghast at this.
Stay focused: we are discussing the Church’s position on punishment, justice, and capital punishment.
Nonsense, I am discussing justice, a virtue which the Church holds in high regard and which she apparently feels we are competent to execute.
It isn’t relevant to the discussion.
I’m listening, I’m just not hearing anything. I have asked a very specific question which you haven’t addressed: what moral virtue or objective justifies capital punishment?
Is this it? “Necessary judged relative to the social good”? I am unfamiliar with Church teaching on this concept; is there some section in the Catechism that covers it? Is this like “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”? This sounds like the Catechism of Spock.
This is not at all what I meant. The issue is not our inability to understand anything but the problem individual interpretation causes when people disagree over what a particular passage means. I am much more comfortable searching out how the Church understands a passage than I am in insisting that my interpretation is the correct one - and the Catechism is perhaps the best place to go to find out what interpretation the Church gives.
Then again, maybe not. It is unclear why justice generates such disdain but it is clear that the Church does not share that opinion nor your perspective on balance.
The Church teaches that this is in fact an obligation of the State.
This is not, however, what the Church teaches. She has always declared that the State has the right to execute the guilty …
We confuse the concept of being pro-life when we fail to acknowledge the sanctity of the life of the victim and place the focus on the life of the killer. Yes, both lives are sacred, but by diminishing the severity of the punishment we diminish the significance of the crime.
This is not what the Church teaches.
That you have no response to what the Church teaches with which you disagree does not make it mumbo-jumbo. You can either support your position or you can’t and if you can’t then you ought to consider the possibility that it is inaccurate.
The Church teaches…blah, blah, blah. The Church’s teachings on the death penalty are not infallible, not by a long shot, so I’m sorry if I don’t see the citation of certain Popes or councils to be the final word on the subject. The bottom line is that in today’s society, we have the ability to safely incarcerate people where they pose no harm to the innocent. Wherever that is an option, conscience dictates that we do just that. “An eye for an eye” is NOT an option.
What does this even mean? “Disturbed equilibrium”? This is a silly statement. If we are to believe in karma, then the Church needs to make it a part of its everyday teachings instead of just randomly introducing the concept in some statement and then claiming it to be a “church teaching”.
I’m thinking the Catholics of the world should be known for … being Catholic. Which typically means behaving as if they believe what the Church teaches.
Even if what the Church teaches is wrong?
If you believe that a genuine teaching of the Church (one which the Church requires the faithful to hold) is wrong, you can conclude two things: you need to continue to study the issue, in order to understand it better; or the Church is simply wrong, and you no longer adhere to the Catholic faith. Your statement here seems a little blasé.
Yes, and the execution of justice by secular authorities ALWAYS extrapolates beyond simple demands for justice. The “Church’s position” should obviously be interpreted in light of this obvious fact, which is an obvious and direct consequence of core Church teachings.
What are you talking about? The Church absolutely does not teach that secular authorities are competent to execute perfect justice. Surely you are not claiming that, according to the Church, that is supposed to be the aim of secular authorities?
You mean you don’t understand the relevance. “The Church” seems to have taught for a long time that execution was a just punishment for thieves, as well as murderers. But you don’t see the relevance…?
I have answered this question (I’m afraid you’re not a very good listener). I accept the fourfold objective enunciated by Dulles.
You’re unfamiliar with the rational context of much of Church teaching, I’m sure. Why would it be “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”? How did you come up with that? One section of the Catechism that very clearly implies the principle I mentioned is… 2267! Another would be the section on just war. In any case, reason requires the principle - would you like to deny this?
“A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death”
I agree that Christ did not say that the punishment of death for the woman caught in adultery was unjust. After all, the payment for sin is death. What Jesus did say is that whoever is without sin let him cast the first stone. He didn’t say whoever has not committed adultery may cast the first stone. He said that whoever is without sin, any sin. No one cast the first stone.
Untrue.
Please review:
It has been Catholic teaching for nearly 2000 years.
Until you, no one in this discussion has questioned that man has been authorized by God to take lives under certain circumstamces. Men taking the lives of other men has been morally licit under God’s law for what, 7000 years.
I think you give way too much deferrennce to popular culture and not to Catholic teaching, which makes the clear distinction between the morally licit death penalty, in accordance with the sanctity of life, but always comdemns abortion as an intrinsic evil.
Yes, that is an obvious contradiciton in teaching which should not exist. I think everyone can see it. What PJPII was trying to do was limit or end the death penalty based only upon the security of prisons not allowing murderers to harm or murder again. The problem is that we all know that such is untrue. Prison systems are well known for violence and inconsistencies in security, as well as wrongly releasing known bad folks who often harm and murder, again, as well as for allowing criminal enterprises to flurish in prisons, which affect and harm innocent lives both in prions as well as the free world.
For every study you cited above, I can find 5 that say the opposite. Let me know if you’re interested.
I’m thinking … probably not, at least not in the direction you want.
Extending your approach to other aspects of life: could a Catholic serve as a prison warden? A guard? A judge? At one time Catholics were in fact precluded from serving in such capacities, but as Catholicism became the religion of the empire and Catholics became more involved in the actual business of running a state, this approached changed. The clergy was prohibited from executing punishment but it was accepted that this was a valid lay duty. A just state imposes just punishments and there is no sin associated with those who carry out the duties that accompany such decisions. I wish to be treated justly and if I treat others justly I should have no fear that God will treat me otherwise, especially as it is God himself who set the just punishment for murder.