W
wheels10
Guest
I have a question for those that support the death penalty. Given everything that Jesus teaches us about how to live, would you personally execute this punishment?
- Status
D
d97c
Guest
Betterrave…you have stated that YOU think that J P 2’s opinion of the death penalty is better…(By the way, whether something is ‘obvious’ is once again, a matter of opinion, so therefore is not, objectively, “obvious,”) Good for you------believe what you want to----I think centuries of teachings that supported the right of the state to execute is “better”. …and that’s the way it needs to be TAUGHT… WE CAN BOTH HAVE THAT DIFFERENT OPINION, AND WE CAN AGREE TO DISAGREE. Thats different from abortion—where Catholics cant, as Catholics, disagree.
John Paul 2 was a great Pope, but he has no expertise in criminal justice. I have a Doctorate in it, and I tell you…he was, respectfully, WRONG about his ideas on criminal justice.
Wheels…if I were working in the pen as an executioner, and Hitler or Osama , or any of the murderers, came to be executed, I could certainly carry out the state’s right to execute the decision of the jury and judge. Just as I could use self defense to take a life, or kill someone in a war, …as taught in centuties of Catholic catachisms, writings and papal statements, as stated above, if you care to read them. Your statements of how Jesus taught us “to live,” I refer you to the centuries of Catholic teachings…and given the teaching that the death penalty was the duty of the state, for CENTURIES, I submit that Jesus’ teachings on “how to live” correspond to MY ideas, and not yours. Read the current Pope’s opinion of the death penalty and what Catholics can believe:
“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
John Paul 2 was a great Pope, but he has no expertise in criminal justice. I have a Doctorate in it, and I tell you…he was, respectfully, WRONG about his ideas on criminal justice.
Wheels…if I were working in the pen as an executioner, and Hitler or Osama , or any of the murderers, came to be executed, I could certainly carry out the state’s right to execute the decision of the jury and judge. Just as I could use self defense to take a life, or kill someone in a war, …as taught in centuties of Catholic catachisms, writings and papal statements, as stated above, if you care to read them. Your statements of how Jesus taught us “to live,” I refer you to the centuries of Catholic teachings…and given the teaching that the death penalty was the duty of the state, for CENTURIES, I submit that Jesus’ teachings on “how to live” correspond to MY ideas, and not yours. Read the current Pope’s opinion of the death penalty and what Catholics can believe:
“3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm
P
pnewton
Guest
I have not supported the death penalty* in this thread* because of the issue of its purpose and scope. Yet I will answer, “Yes.”
W
wheels10
Guest
Thank you for your honesty. It is good to know if people support the death penalty that they would actually do it themselves. The message that I receive from Jesus would never allow me to do it. The greatest commandments that Jesus gave us were Love thy neighbour and Love thy enemy. I am unable to see the death penalty meet either of these requirements, can you?
D
d97c
Guest
Of course I can. Look…how do you tell what Christ’s words mean in daily life… you look at the writings of the Doctors of the Church, so well quoted in earlier posts. You look at traditional catachisms, Popes’ writings, Aquinas, St Augustine, etc, etc. As I have stated, the Popes, as late as Pius XII, stated the church supported the state’s execution of those committing serious crimes. Proportionality…
You can have the opinion that these writers were wrong for those centuries, but that is YOUR OPINION. The facts are as I stated them. That was the teaching of the church in the 60s…I still have my catachism… Now, Pope John Paul 2 disliked the death penalty, for sure !!..and changed the catachism after Evangelium Vitae. What makes him enlightened and the centuries of Popes etc etc wrong…just because they were BEFORE him???
And as I stated in my lastpost…this current Pope stated that one can disagree whether the death penalty can be valid…but catholics can NOT as to abortion. So, if I can support the death penalty, (see my last post) are you saying the current Pope is in error in his teaching that ?? of course you dont. That’s why you and I can, as opposed to the abortion issue, disagree as good Catholics. A victim of an abortion is innocent…a murderer is , after a trial, adjudged guilty…
You know, if one carries your logic to its end, one couldnt defend himself in self defense, nor could you protect the country in a fighting war…This “love your neighbor” and “love thy enemy” does not extend to (as was the traditional teaching of the church) the death penalty, self defense and prosecuting a just war. “Love thy enemy” does not mean I have to let the enemy kill me or win the war…OR (like Hitler for example) get away with murdering millions without an APPROPRIATE punishment…and I think the proportional punishment for Hitler would have been execution. What would you have done with Hitler, give him life without parole?? …where he would be interviewed ad nauseum??..he would have been the STAR !!! He’d love it…You would have let the killer of millions of Jews live, if convicted?
You can have the opinion that these writers were wrong for those centuries, but that is YOUR OPINION. The facts are as I stated them. That was the teaching of the church in the 60s…I still have my catachism… Now, Pope John Paul 2 disliked the death penalty, for sure !!..and changed the catachism after Evangelium Vitae. What makes him enlightened and the centuries of Popes etc etc wrong…just because they were BEFORE him???
And as I stated in my lastpost…this current Pope stated that one can disagree whether the death penalty can be valid…but catholics can NOT as to abortion. So, if I can support the death penalty, (see my last post) are you saying the current Pope is in error in his teaching that ?? of course you dont. That’s why you and I can, as opposed to the abortion issue, disagree as good Catholics. A victim of an abortion is innocent…a murderer is , after a trial, adjudged guilty…
You know, if one carries your logic to its end, one couldnt defend himself in self defense, nor could you protect the country in a fighting war…This “love your neighbor” and “love thy enemy” does not extend to (as was the traditional teaching of the church) the death penalty, self defense and prosecuting a just war. “Love thy enemy” does not mean I have to let the enemy kill me or win the war…OR (like Hitler for example) get away with murdering millions without an APPROPRIATE punishment…and I think the proportional punishment for Hitler would have been execution. What would you have done with Hitler, give him life without parole?? …where he would be interviewed ad nauseum??..he would have been the STAR !!! He’d love it…You would have let the killer of millions of Jews live, if convicted?
B
Betterave
Guest
I have NOT stated that I think that JPII’s view of the DP is better. Please re-read what I wrote. Also, I hold that what I stated to be obvious is objectively obvious. If you wish to dispute this claim, please say why you think that what I called obvious is possibly not obvious.
You have a doctorate in criminal justice, but so what? That qualification pales in comparison to those of JPII, philosopher, theologian, man of prayer, man of political action, victim of an assassination attempt, etc. This is not just a criminal justice issue, it is a deeply philosophical and theological issue. What I object to in this thread is the arrogance of those who fail to consider the complexity of the issue and appear to ignore the depth of reflection that presumably inspired the thinking of JPII.
B
Betterave
Guest
I will use this word again: obviously if someone is more enlightened than others, it is *not just *because those others were before him. Your rhetorical question here is just the insinuation of a straw man into the argument.
Actually, as I read it, Catholics cannot be opposed in principle to the death penalty; they can wish to see its use minimized. JPII is as clear about this as anyone.
D
d97c
Guest
Once again…read the following and tell me how you can possibly say what you continue to spew !
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia"
The current Pope wrote that…and if he says there may be a “legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics”…how can you possibly say that the death penalty is anything but permitted by the current church??
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia"
The current Pope wrote that…and if he says there may be a “legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics”…how can you possibly say that the death penalty is anything but permitted by the current church??
E
Ender
Guest
The third part of 2267 is precisely a criminal justice issue as it has to do with an evaluation of the capabilities of modern penal systems. What it is not is a theological issue, none of JPII’s qualifications are particularly relevant to the area of penology, and a lot of Catholics have, justifiably, dissented from his opinion.
“Presumably inspired” is pretty weak but you are right in saying that we have to presume what he thought since there is nothing in Church history that relates to his comments on this subject and he certainly provided no justification for them. Nor is this a particularly complex issue; it has been clearly explained over the past two millennia. The fact that you might not like what has been said on the subject does not make it complex.
Ender
D
dudleysharp
Guest
Back at ya.
PJPII established this as a criminal justice issue when he based his death penalty reasoning on defense of society and the state of the prison system.
Reason and facts don’t just fly out the window when you enter the realm of the religious.
PJPIII put this discussion squarely into a worldly examination of prisons system.
Both PJPII and CCC wrongly evaluated the state of worldly prison systems. Had they correctly evaluated them, they would have found that executing more unjust aggressors was a greater defense of society and that we had highly varying security and standards throughout the worlds prison systems, all of which allowed unjust aggressors to harm and murder again.
Both PJPII and the CCC have established a teaching which they wrongly find all but does away with the death penalty, resulting in more unjust aggressors spared at the cost of more innocents murdered or otherwise harmed.
In addition, it very likely puts more souls of unjust aggressors at risk.
Mercy & the Death Penalty
- Saint Augustine: " . . . inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which might continue if their life went on." (On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.)
- Saint Thomas Aquinas: . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin anymore." (Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6, 2
- “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Quaker, biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey (1) (p. 116).
- Romano Amerio, a faithful Catholic Vatican insider, scholar, professor at the Academy of Lugano, consultant to the Preparatory Commission of Vatican II, and a peritus (expert theologian) at the Council.
"This fits exactly with St. Thomas’s opinion that as well as canceling out any debt that the criminal owes to civil society, capital punishment can cancel all punishment due in the life to come. His thought is . . . Summa, ‘Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment due for those crimes in the next life, or a least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation and contrition; but a natural death does not.’ "
"The moral importance of wanting to make expiation also explains the indefatigable efforts of the Confraternity of St. John the Baptist Beheaded, the members of which used to accompany men to their deaths, all the while suggesting, begging and providing help to get them to repent and accept their deaths, so ensuring that they would die in the grace of God, as the saying went.” (2)
Some opposing capital punishment ". . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory. In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened. In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (2)
Some death penalty opponents “deny the expiatory value of death; death which has the highest expiatory value possible among natural things, precisely because life is the highest good among the relative goods of this world; and it is by consenting to sacrifice that life, that the fullest expiation can be made. And again, the expiation that the innocent Christ made for the sins of mankind was itself effected through his being condemned to death.” (2)
- The Catechism of The Roman Catholic Church (2005) states: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” “When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.” 2266
contd
D
dudleysharp
Guest
contd
We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime/disorder of the aggressor and hold them accountable for it by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the guilt/sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice/just retribution/just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example of 2260
“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”
“The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.”
“My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.”
“Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .”.
" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. "
“The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment.”
“But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”
"This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. "
" . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment C.S. Lewis
Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.
contd
We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime/disorder of the aggressor and hold them accountable for it by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the guilt/sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice/just retribution/just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example of 2260
“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”
- Jesus: Now one of the criminals hanging there reviled Jesus, saying, “Are you not the Messiah? Save yourself and us.” The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, “Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” (Jesus) replied to him, “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.” Luke 23: 39-43
- C. S. Lewis: "According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. "
“The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.”
“My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.”
“Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .”.
" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. "
“The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment.”
“But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”
"This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. "
" . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment C.S. Lewis
- C. S. Lewis: "Some enlightened people would like to banish all conceptions of retribution or desert from their theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by so doing they render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution. " “The Complete C.S. Lewis”, Signature Classics, The Problem of Pain, P407, Harper Collins, 2002
- Why do parents punish their children for transgressions? I think it easy to understand sanction of a child, by a parent, is a reflection in love.
Few are so naive as to believe that any or all of these can or will take place in many or most circumstances with criminals within a criminal justice system. It does, however, recognizes that sanction/retribution is an essential requirement, which has a hoped for restorative and rehabilitative effect.
contd
D
dudleysharp
Guest
contd
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
- “Executing a murderer is the only way to adequately express our horror at the taking of an innocent life. Nothing else suffices…A murderer sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole can still laugh, learn and love, listen to music and read, form friendships, and do the thousand-and-one things (mundane and sublime) forever foreclosed to his victims.” Don Feder, Boston Herald Columnist. “McVeigh Makes the Case for Capital Punishment”. 21 May 2001
- Never Forget Mercy for the Innocent
homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
- synopsis of “A Bible Study”, from Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992. Dr. Carey was a Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College.
- “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007 ,
www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html
B
Betterave
Guest
Is this addressed to me?
If it is, I sure don’t know how you managed to obtain any kind of doctorate. Please re-read what I have written.In case you didn’t notice:
“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”
implies
“The opinion that the DP is intrinsically wrong is not a legitimate Catholic position.”
B
Betterave
Guest
That’s exactly the kind of simplistic arrogance I was talking about. Please re-read my comment and try to think about that possibility with an open mind.
B
Betterave
Guest
But obviously not based solely on that!
Obviously!
But see your comment above!: Reason and facts don’t just fly out the window when you enter the realm of the religious. In other words, there is no dichotomy between “religion” - i.e., a complex, comprehensive philsophical, anthropological, theological, historical, doctrinal, etc. analysis - and “a worldly examination of prisons system” [prison systems?].
E
Ender
Guest
This is the point that Pius XII addressed:
*A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the **expiation **of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty . . . . In the metaphysical order, penalty is a consequence of dependence on the supreme will, dependence which exists in the deepest recesses of created being. *
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Surely if my position was as simplistic as you say you should be able to demolish it. I rather lean to the alternative conclusion that you haven’t made any headway because my position, based as it is on what the Church has actually written on the subject, is correct … simplicity notwithstanding.
Ender
D
d97c
Guest
But There are situations where war and the death penalty are moral (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309, 2267). It is left to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for such matters to determine whether the conditions in a particular case warrant their use. Consequently, to disagree with the Pope on these issues is to disagree with his prudential judgment, not with Church doctrine.
Even though in his position the pope is not charged with decisions about waging war or executing criminals, deference is certainly due to his prudential judgment. But to disagree with his prudential judgment in a particular case does not amount to dissent from Church teaching and does not trigger the provisions of canon law (e.g., CIC 915) that would result in Communion being withheld.
This much is indicated in what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the post I cited earlier. But he went further by referring to “a legitimate diversity of opinion” regarding war and capital punishment. legitimate diversity of opinion on capital punishment is founded on prudential judgment. The Church acknowledges that the state has the right to execute criminals in certain circumstances (cf. CCC 2266). Whether or not those circumstances are met in a particular case belongs to the competence of the judicial system and not to the Church. Judges and juries are the ones who must apply their prudential judgment to the facts of a particular case.
But if there is a legitimate diversity of opinion on particular cases, does this extend to the level of policy? Why does Cardinal Ratzinger indicate that one could disagree with the highly restrictive policy proposed by John Paul II regarding the use of the death penalty?
One possible reason is that the Church does not have conditions for the imposition of the death penalty that have been articulated in comparable detail, precision, and force to those of its just-war doctrine. There are circumstances that one could propose as established principles of Catholic doctrine on this topic: The person to be executed must be guilty of an offense, his guilt must be morally certain (i.e., proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”), and his offense must be sufficiently grave to be proportionate to the loss of his own life.
If one disagreed with these points, then one would be going beyond legitimate diversity of opinion. But those who disagree with John Paul II on capital punishment typically do not disagree with these principles.
What is always important, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith pointed out in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, is “the willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the magisterium” (IEVT 24).
The document goes on to say that “when it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies.** Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every.aspect or the entire complexity of a question” (ibid.).**
Most fundamentally, the matter we are dealing with is a prudential one involving “contingent and conjectural elements,” such as the most effective way to deter crime and prompt the repentance of criminals. The Pope appeals to changes in the prison system, the severity and efficacy of which vary from country to country. Even then he acknowledges that there are cases where the death penalty can be warranted. Neither “very rare” nor “practically non-existent” means “non-existent,” and the question of whether one is facing such a case is inescapably prudential.
In view of these considerations, it is easier to understand why Cardinal Ratzinger would state that there is a “legitimate diversity of opinion” among Catholics regarding war and capital punishment. Good Catholics should not make the mistake of thinking there is not.
Even though in his position the pope is not charged with decisions about waging war or executing criminals, deference is certainly due to his prudential judgment. But to disagree with his prudential judgment in a particular case does not amount to dissent from Church teaching and does not trigger the provisions of canon law (e.g., CIC 915) that would result in Communion being withheld.
This much is indicated in what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in the post I cited earlier. But he went further by referring to “a legitimate diversity of opinion” regarding war and capital punishment. legitimate diversity of opinion on capital punishment is founded on prudential judgment. The Church acknowledges that the state has the right to execute criminals in certain circumstances (cf. CCC 2266). Whether or not those circumstances are met in a particular case belongs to the competence of the judicial system and not to the Church. Judges and juries are the ones who must apply their prudential judgment to the facts of a particular case.
But if there is a legitimate diversity of opinion on particular cases, does this extend to the level of policy? Why does Cardinal Ratzinger indicate that one could disagree with the highly restrictive policy proposed by John Paul II regarding the use of the death penalty?
One possible reason is that the Church does not have conditions for the imposition of the death penalty that have been articulated in comparable detail, precision, and force to those of its just-war doctrine. There are circumstances that one could propose as established principles of Catholic doctrine on this topic: The person to be executed must be guilty of an offense, his guilt must be morally certain (i.e., proven “beyond a reasonable doubt”), and his offense must be sufficiently grave to be proportionate to the loss of his own life.
If one disagreed with these points, then one would be going beyond legitimate diversity of opinion. But those who disagree with John Paul II on capital punishment typically do not disagree with these principles.
What is always important, as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith pointed out in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, is “the willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the magisterium” (IEVT 24).
The document goes on to say that “when it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies.** Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every.aspect or the entire complexity of a question” (ibid.).**
Most fundamentally, the matter we are dealing with is a prudential one involving “contingent and conjectural elements,” such as the most effective way to deter crime and prompt the repentance of criminals. The Pope appeals to changes in the prison system, the severity and efficacy of which vary from country to country. Even then he acknowledges that there are cases where the death penalty can be warranted. Neither “very rare” nor “practically non-existent” means “non-existent,” and the question of whether one is facing such a case is inescapably prudential.
In view of these considerations, it is easier to understand why Cardinal Ratzinger would state that there is a “legitimate diversity of opinion” among Catholics regarding war and capital punishment. Good Catholics should not make the mistake of thinking there is not.
W
wheels10
Guest
I believe in self defense but only to the point of disabling the aggressor, not killing. Yes, I know, based on human understanding this may not appear to be an effective form of defense, but if I strictly followed only my brain, there are many things that I would do differently. I am both a physical and spiritual being and my spirit tells me that killing another human being is not God’s will. What does your spirit tell you?
D
d97c
Guest
My spirit tells me that if I have a gun and a guy is breaking into my house…Im not going to worry about “disabling” him ! Im going to, if he is in the process, shoot him. If Im robbed by a guy who has a knife, and since I have a conceal-carry permit, I carry a Glock, I will shoot to kill, since the law allows me to ward off deadly physical force WITH deady physical force. I would do that if my family were in danger of serious physical injury or death…I would shoot to kill, and so would you. If not…are you really respecting the lives of your innocent family??? Your home is broken into at 2 am, and you are going to ASK QUESTIONS??..like “what do you want?” or “are you dangerous?”…be practical.
My spirit follows the “spirit” of the church followed for centuries…when it stated that it supported the right of the state to inflict the maximum punishment, proportional to the crime. The church and the Popes and the doctors of the church and catachisms ALL had NO problem with the “spirit” that now concerns you. So—you have yet to answer…if we had caught Adolph Hitler, killer of 6 million Jews…under your “spirit”…once he’s convicted at the Hague after WW2,he gets 3 hot meals and a place to live for the rest of his life??
Is that what you would have done???
My spirit follows the “spirit” of the church followed for centuries…when it stated that it supported the right of the state to inflict the maximum punishment, proportional to the crime. The church and the Popes and the doctors of the church and catachisms ALL had NO problem with the “spirit” that now concerns you. So—you have yet to answer…if we had caught Adolph Hitler, killer of 6 million Jews…under your “spirit”…once he’s convicted at the Hague after WW2,he gets 3 hot meals and a place to live for the rest of his life??
Is that what you would have done???
- Status