Death penalty and purpose of punishment

[dudleysharp]

Here is a quick test – let’s replace the quote from Gen. 9:6 in 2260 with the interpretation that you and Ender hold:

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

Whoever murders shall be executed.

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.​

Seriously – if Gen. 9:6 actually said that in the eyes of the Church, then the words introducing the quote in 2260 would make absolutely no sense whatsoever. The quote is meant to support the claim that God’s covernent is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence; if it was intended to be a reminder that we must execute murderers then the introduction would have been different.

Clauses 2259-2262 give scriptural background for the section “RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE”. 2262, for example, which I didn’t see you mention, states:

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies. He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.

It cites Mt. 5:22-39, which, as I’m sure you know, includes:

'You have heard how it was said: Eye for eye and tooth for tooth. But I say this to you: offer no resistance to the wicked. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other as well;"

On the fact of it, this contradicts the later clauses of legitimate defence as well, but in the opposite way. Why are you so sure about the contradiction you perceive with 2260 but completely oblivious to the opposite contradiction in 2262?

I have no such problem. The Church has the authority to interpret scripture, and if they present as background material scripture that appears, on the fact of it, to contradict the very next thing that they say, then I assume it’s my interpretation at fault until compelling evidence convinces me otherwise.

I have never seen such an interpretation or explanation by either me or Ender. I contend you are just making it up.

I will let Ender correct me if I am wrong, as to what he is saying.

It is the Catechism which requires executions as it is the only way “to render the unjust aggressor inacapable of harming.”

Then the Catechism quickly contradicts that instruction. Plain as day.

Genesis says what it says and I have never seen it interpreted in a fashion other than what Ender has stated. If you have an alternate, Church accepted reading of it, please present it.

It is well known, in the full biblical and theological context, that the Sermon on the Mount is speaking of murder, not all killing, and that executions for justice are, of course, not prohibited. Just the opposite. Yes, we as individuals are to turn the other cheek, but the governments role as civil rulers is not to turn the other cheek but to protect its citizens.

In otherwords, Jason is wrongly attempting to place personal instruction into government instruction.

Then there is this interpretation, which I have seen in several locations:

At the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed.The other alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. By handing over one’s cloak in addition to one’s tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Hebrew Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

Furthermore, Jason does what many folks do with the Sermon on the Mount, he leaves out important sections, such as:

22 But I say to you, whoever is angry 18 with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

In other words, Jesus is raising the bar and its consequences, for personal behavior and its consequences. Even having hatred in your heart, not even committing a crime,makes you subject to eternal sufferring - much, much worse than the earthly punishment of death for murder.

 

[dudleysharp]

Isn’t it odd that not once in their summary of those clauses did they think to mention that there is a teaching that remains necessary for all time that we must execute murderers?

JasonSB:

I think the better point might be, that we don’t need a summary 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.”

Because it is clear what it means. The vast majority of Catechism text is not served by the Compendium, for the very reason that such explanations are not necessary.

Why would a Compendium repeat the exact phrase from the text:

“This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

When it is quite clear that is what it already said?

 

[pnewton]

When I said the Catechism and EV were problematic, I meant it.

Just because you and I and others may think such a stance is idiotic, that is exactly what the Catechism is saying. Should the rewrite it. Of course. The whole section is a complete mess.

There are conflicts and problems, everywhere.

Which simply leads us back to this entire poor section of the Catechism and the inevitability of its thorough amending.

Then the Catechism quickly contradicts that instruction. Plain as day.

Why would a Compendium repeat the exact phrase from the text:

"This teaching remains necessary for all time."

**When it is quite clear that is what it already said?/**quote]You go on and on about how contradictory the Catechism is to understand and how poorly it is written when it does not support widespread use of the death penalty, yet in the section you see as supporting widespread use of the death penalty you claim it is clear. The only explaination I can see for these two opposite ideas is that you read the catechism as an advocate for the death penalty to find ammunition. A Catholic approaches the Catechism as a student sitting at the feet of of a teacher.

I have commented on the meaning of 2260, as supported by teaching of the Holy Father. I commented on the difference between the approach to punishment in general and capital punishment specifically. That is because I seek to impose the will of the Catholic Church on my conscience, not the other way around.

 

[Ender]

this quote has already been cited ad nauseam in this thread (along with the typical kind of ridiculously condescending preface you got here from Ender), and it has been pointed out ad nauseam that it does not support (it is irrelevant to) the claim that the Catechism contradicts itself or Church teaching (or that JPII did).

This would be a useful observation if the citation had been offered for that purpose but in fact I cited it to point out that it is not I but the Church herself who gives significance to that passage and the context in which she applies it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It is your interpretation of Gen. 9:6, not what the Catholic Church says about Gen. 9:6, that is at issue.

“My” interpretation is simply what was expressed in the Catechism of Trent.

So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man (Gen 9:5)

Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God’s image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself ! (Gen 9:6)

*The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. *

2267 does not talk about redressing the disorder or expiation because they are already covered by 2266. 2266 is the general clause that covers all cases; 2267 goes into detail of one particular way of redressing the disorder because there are serious risks associated with that particular method (e.g. it cannot be “undone”, and slaying the innocent and the righteous is universally forbidden, always and everywhere).

There is nothing whatever in 2267 that supports this, nor would it make any sense to make this argument since modern society is more capable of determining guilt than older societies yet we know that the Church supported capital punishment in “older” societies (pre-1997). The only concern addressed by 2267 relates to the protection of society. If it was concerned with “risks” it would conclude that, since the risks in modern societies are less, capital punishment should be used more liberally.

2267 is only in conflict with 2266 if you assume that non-lethal means cannot redress the disorder introduced by the offence, which is begging the question.

It’s not exactly begging the question to raise the issue, nor is that the only problem with 2267. The first sentence is wrong as a matter of fact, the third is obviously merely opinion, and the second, in its explanation of why capital punishment should not be used, reverses the meaning of Gen 9:6. All in all, it’s a very poor effort.

Non-sequiter – of course the punishment required can change. The requirement is that the punishment is “proportionate”, not that it is identical to the crime.

The severity of the crime of murder cannot change therefore the punishments which are proportionate to the crime cannot change. It has nothing to do with being identical to the crime.

Since you claim we have been explicity told what “proportionate punishment” is, I’m interested to see that. What’s the “proportionate punishment” for one murder? Ten? Genocide?

The punishment for murder is the maximum possible: the life of the criminal. If a man has a debt he cannot pay, he forfeits all that he has. The size of the unpaid portion of the debt is irrelevant.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Then why not cite references?

• Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
  - Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live. (Pius XII, 1952)
  - Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Innocent I, 405)

He most certainly did not say that the clauses themselves were “optional”.

Nor did I claim that he did. It was Dulles who specifically called it prudential opinion, Ratzinger and the USCCB simply implied it.

That would agree with the notion that the third sentence in 2267 is prudential, because that’s exactly what it says. But you’re still stuck with the second sentence:…

Despite the first sentence being wrong and the third unarguably opinion, it is the second sentence that is the worst of them all. Gen 9:6 says that murderers are to be executed because the life of the victim was sacred; 2267 says that murderers are not to be executed because (by implication) the life of the killer is sacred. This reversal of meaning is unsupportable.

Then hopefully you won’t have any trouble finding historical Church teachings that contradict it, as well as Church teachings that deny the right of the Pope to further develop Church teaching.

You’re asking me to prove a negative, as in: the Church has never made such a statement. How exactly am I to find a statement they haven’t made? You support the statement as true so here’s your chance to support your position with a citation from a Church document. Show me.

Firstly, an official Church statement of which parts are opinion and which parts are doctrinal would be helpful, because otherwise how do we know what parts we are free not to accept? Otherwise I can simply label anything I disagree with as “opinion”.

Yes, it would be helpful, especially as we both agree that at least part of the section is opinion. The section is a mess and will have to be addressed.

Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe (R.M. Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L, 2003)

Ender

 

[Ender]

Human life must be respected because it is sacred.

Isn’t it odd that not once in their summary of those clauses did they think to mention that there is a teaching that remains necessary for all time that we must execute murderers?

Perhaps that’s not the point of 2260 after all…

How do we know that human life is sacred? We know because the Bible says so … in Gen 9:6, a passage regularly cited by the Church. What must be recognized is the context in which this information is given to us: it is because man is made in God’s image that his life is sacred and it is because of this that the crime of murder is so heinous. We are not randomly informed that man’s life is sacred - that piece of information is given us as the explanation for the command that murderers are to be executed. It is specifically *because *man’s life is sacred that the penalty for taking it is so severe.

The conviction of right reason and the certainty of faith that human life, from its conception to natural death belongs to God and not to the human being, gives the human being that sacred character and personal dignity which the one legal and correct moral attitude inspires: profound respect. For the Lord of life said: “For your life-blood I will surely require a reckoning… for God made man in his own image” (Gen 9: 5-6). (BXVI, 2009)

Ender

 

[frantony]

And the Church has answered this question:
“It is lawful to kill when … carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime…" (Catechism of Pius X)

What happens if the King or Emperor or the Supreme Authority is proved to be a murderer and is sentenced to death by law?

But the more serious problem is that the Church has two answers which contradict each other. So which is the correct answer?
For a question "What colour is an elephant? ", if the Church answers “black” in one statement of the CCC and “white” in another statement, can one say that the Catholic church has answered the question, or that it has taught anything?
Does not the very existence of even one set of contradictory statements prove that the Catholic Church or CCC or Pius X are not infallible in their teachings?
And by just repeating the teachings of Catholic Church and CCC and Pius X, are not your statements or answers in the same boat as them, and subject to errors?

If you insist on having your personal interpretation then there is nothing more here than differing opinions, as in “Who was better, Mantle or Mays?” I present what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. I can understand why that might not be persuasive to someone who doesn’t belong to that Church but you should also recognize that I won’t find the “My opinion is right because its mine” argument very persuasive.

Again, the issue is not whether my interpretation or opinion is right or wrong. The problem is that the what the catholic Church teaches has no meaning. For your question “Who was better, Mantle or Mays?”", if the Church answers “” Mantle and Mays are better", what does it mean? or if it says Mantle is better in one page of the CCC and teaches Mays is better in another page, it only shows the depravity of logic in the Catholic Church, and that her teachings cannot be claimed as “infallible”. And the same goes for your answers because in them, you are only repeating (or may be allowed to repeat) what is in the CCC.

I have conceded that 2267 conflicts with Church teaching. With that one exception, however, what the Church has taught in this are has been consistent from the beginning. Nor have my references been limited solely to the present Catechism. There are statements from five catechisms, at least half a dozen popes and any number of Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church all saying the same thing.

One 2267 is enough to prove that the CCC is not infallible, and everything inside of it cannot be taken as absolute truths. Also it nullifies all statements from the five catechisms, half a dozen popes and en-numerous Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church. It also shows that Catholic Church is not consistent in its teachings, and that they are opportunists. They excommunicate Catholics when it suits them, and even burns them in stakes if they have the power. Now since they have no power to burn anybody in any stake, they take a different stand and apologise for their earlier misdeeds.

Well, you certainly haven’t talked of any so I understand why you would want to avoid the subject.

I never claimed that I had any evidence, nor did I claim that I know the correct answer.
That is why I am in this forum to get the views of different people so I can arrive at a more logical answer. But in this forum only you and the Catholic Church whose teachings you repeat has no clear cut stand on this issue, because she teaches different things in different places, which you claim are “evidences” to support your (and your Church’s) opinion, while actually, you and the Catholic church has no clear opinion on the subject at all.
How many people would have become Christians if Jesus Christ taught “thou shall not kill another man” in one sermon, and taught “It is lawful for you to kill another man if you are stronger or more powerful, or better armed than him” in another sermon?

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

dudleysharp;7213263:

The only explaination I can see for these two opposite ideas is that you read the catechism as an advocate for the death penalty to find ammunition. A Catholic approaches the Catechism as a student sitting at the feet of of a teacher.

I have commented on the meaning of 2260, as supported by teaching of the Holy Father. I commented on the difference between the approach to punishment in general and capital punishment specifically. That is because I seek to impose the will of the Catholic Church on my conscience, not the other way around.

I think you are attempting to be fair and I appreciate that.

You write: “The only explaination I can see for these two opposite ideas”

You are correct, there are two opposite ideas of the foundation for punishment presented by the Church on the same topic. Not good.

First, (2260-2265) we have punishments (and self defense) which must always prevent an unjust aggressor from harming again. Logically and historically, we all know that the only sanction or action which can accomplish that is execution or death.

Is that what the Church intended. I say no.

But, that is precisely and accurately what the Catechism says. The language and definitions are clear. Anyone who reads it differently is intentionally halucinating.

If reaching for Truth, one must ask, why after decades of putting this Catechism together, would they present such an unintended mess? Sitting at the feet of your teacher, that is what you should ask.

An explanation needs to be produced and an amendment needs to be produced. if truth and clarity are important.

Secondly, 2267, for the most severe of all crimes, those that have either optional or mandatory death sentences, the Church says that we need to got to all lengths, to make sure that these criminals are given an opportunity to harm, again, because we are directed to leave them alive.

The biblical foundation for the death penalty is found in Genesis 9:5-6 and is based, specifically, upon “shedding blood”.

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.”

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. the law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

And always and everywhere there is also the prescribed sanction of "For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”, which, as we know is confirmed in the Council of Kent, that execution represents paramount obedience to that commandment.

Paramount obedience. In other words, what we have today is the Church making every possible effort to avoid such paramount obedience to eternal teachings and replace that with a human reliance on prison systems.

contd

 

[dudleysharp]

contd

PNewton, when you are seating at the feet of your earthly teacher and you see them spreading such nonsense, you have an obligation to seek the truth and challenge them on their teachings if they are so clearly in conflict with the truth.

2262 In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord recalls the commandment, “You shall not kill,” and adds to it the proscription of anger, hatred, and vengeance. Going further, Christ asks his disciples to turn the other cheek, to love their enemies.He did not defend himself and told Peter to leave his sword in its sheath.

I think that we are all on the same page here. The type of killing being discussed, here, is the illegitimate type, meaning with anger or hatred, as well as many others, not the just prescription of death for murder.

And, sadly, the Church left out the teaching that Jesus was actually raising the bar in the SOTM, teaching that just having hatred in out hearts provided the proper punishment of eternity in hell, obviously a much more severe sanction than an earthly execution for murder, which may offer the blessing of expiation of our sins, as detailed elsewhere.

" But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna."

We have this:

2266: “The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good.”

The “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm.” 2265

2266 “the States efforts” are the controlling civil authority for such unjust aggressors and the definitions of the common good have been made clear throughtout 2260-2265.

What we have in 2260-2265, is a consideration of individual self defense, the eternal presciption for the death penalty and incorporating the civil authorities duties in protecting the common good with the penal system, self defense of the state, if you will.

With 2263, it is clear that both defense of individuals and the state are described and that both refer to the common good requirement of rendering the unjust aggressor incapable of doing harm, which can only be accomplished by death.

With 2264 we have this:

“If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.”

Clearly, this is a huge conflict with the common good and rendering unjust aggressors incapable of harming again.

This passage is stating, rightly, I think, that the degree of force needs to be considered and that too much force is unlawful or illegitimate. In other words, both killing in self defense or with the death penalty and any other sanction or response, may be improper, depending upon circumstance.

I think we would all agree with that.

It is to be reviewed on an individual bases, with the consideration that we will always make some errors in this regard, unknowingly, and that any mistake needs to fall on protecting innocent lives, meaning an error in degree must be that which better protects the individuals and society from an unjust aggressor, the opposite of what 2267 prescribes, but what 2260- 2266 does prescribe.

And then we have the obvious problems between 2266 and 2267.

What needs to occur is a complete rewrite of this entire section of the Catechism.

With rare exceptions, I see us trying to work our way through this discussion in a sincere and truthful manner, often with wide disagreements.

I think a major part of that problem is defined by obvious contraditctions within the section, itself, as well as with well known Church teachings.

I think both truth and clarity need to be enforced and the only way to do that is a complete rewrite of this section.

People of good will should not have this much disagreement over what should be clear.

Outside of this forum, in discussion after discussion and essay after essay, there are those also trying to define what this section means, often with vastly different explanations.

For me, that makes it clear that the section is not clear and that the Church needs to do a much better job with it.

 

[pnewton]

PNewton, when you are seating at the feet of your earthly teacher and you see them spreading such nonsense, you have an obligation to seek the truth and challenge them on their teachings if they are so clearly in conflict with the truth.

I have no such obligation, and here is why. Even from a non-catholic point of view, it is acceptable to interpret biblical teaching for oneself. If one decides that we should not have a death penalty, that in no way conflicts with one’s salvation, his knowledge of God, his understanding of the deity of Christ, or any point of doctrinal confession ever held by any group that has called itself Christian. At best, most groups allow for diversity of opinion, or in cases like the Quakers and Amish, non-violence.

In the case of the Catholic, we have an additional understanding of theology beyond the bare essentials of “mere Christianity”. Namely, that we we sit at the feet of the Church we are not sitting at the feet of earthly teachers. Rather, we sit at the feet of the Holy Spirit, operating through the Bride of Christ, as promised by the Master the last week of His life on Earth.

To those outside the Church, we appear as sheep. To which I would reply, “We have been called that before.”

 

[Ender]

frantony:

But the more serious problem is that the Church has two answers which contradict each other.

There are three possible answers to this “problem.” First - and what seems most likely to me - is that the position expressed in 2267 is a prudential opinion and does not rise to the level of Church doctrine, therefore the Church has not contradicted herself. Second, the doctrine is clearly not infallible and the Church has never claimed to be correct about everything, only those doctrines which are either proclaimed or taught as infallible. Third, there is no contradiction.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)

Does not the very existence of even one set of contradictory statements prove that the Catholic Church or CCC or Pius X are not infallible in their teachings?

You need a better understanding of infallibility. The Church does not claim infallibility in everything.

One 2267 is enough to prove that the CCC is not infallible, and everything inside of it cannot be taken as absolute truths. Also it nullifies all statements from the five catechisms, half a dozen popes and en-numerous Early Fathers and Doctors of the Church. It also shows that Catholic Church is not consistent in its teachings, and that they are opportunists.

No, it doesn’t. It means that (possibly) ***a ***mistake was made and furthermore the Catechism has never been proclaimed as infallible.

…you and the Catholic church has no clear opinion on the subject at all.

Your animus toward the Church is clouding your judgment. You may disagree with the position I have defended but no one can reasonably claim to be unsure as to what that position is.

Ender

 

[Betterave]

I think you are attempting to be fair and I appreciate that.

You write: “The only explaination I can see for these two opposite ideas”

You are correct, there are two opposite ideas of the foundation for punishment presented by the Church on the same topic. Not good.

First, (2260-2265) we have punishments (and self defense) which must always prevent an unjust aggressor from harming again. Logically and historically, we all know that the only sanction or action which can accomplish that is execution or death.

Is that what the Church intended. I say no.

But, that is precisely and accurately what the Catechism says. The language and definitions are clear. Anyone who reads it differently is intentionally halucinating.

…]

I think you are *not *trying to be fair, or respectful, or open to rational dialogue, and I don’t appreciate that (and I’d bet others feel the same way). I think there is usually an inverse relation between bluster and substance, and you present an awful lot of bluster.

 

[Betterave]

This would be a useful observation if the citation had been offered for that purpose but in fact I cited it to point out that it is not I but the Church herself who gives significance to that passage and the context in which she applies it.

Ender

And what was your point in pointing that out?

 

[Ender]

And what was your point in pointing that out?

As I said: * “I cited it to point out that it is not I but the Church herself who gives significance to that passage and the context in which she applies it.*”

Ender

 

[Betterave]

As I said: * “I cited it to point out that it is not I but the Church herself who gives significance to that passage and the context in which she applies it.*”

Ender

Oh, that’s it? That’s really the only point you wanted to make? That’s your end point? You have no further point to make in this thread, just that “the Church herself…gives significance to Gen. 9:6 and [that there is a two-millenial] context in which she applies it”? That is your point in this thread? We all know that’s a load of hockey pucks, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, to analyze your claim: “I cited it to point out a) that it is not I but -]the Church herself/-] Cardinal Dulles himself who gives significance to that passage “gives significance”? - that’s a bold claim - sure, it’s holy scripture, obviously it’s ‘significant’ to the Church] and b) the context in which she applies it *what *context? your citation doesn’t tell us anything, not one thing, about ‘context’ that is relevant to resolving the issue in this thread!].”

If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). (Cardinal Dulles, 2002)

 

[dudleysharp]

In the case of the Catholic, we have an additional understanding of theology beyond the bare essentials of “mere Christianity”. Namely, that we we sit at the feet of the Church we are not sitting at the feet of earthly teachers. Rather, we sit at the feet of the Holy Spirit, operating through the Bride of Christ, as promised by the Master the last week of His life on Earth.

To those outside the Church, we appear as sheep. To which I would reply, “We have been called that before.”

It is not as sheep, but in the confidence that the Church has been exhaustive in their affirmation of the truth, before passing it along.

I have seen how thorough the Church can be at searching for the truth, reviewing biblical studies, theology and historical documents, prior to confirming a teaching.

Not at all what we see with 2260-2267.

As Ender quoted:

Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe (R.M. Dunnigan, J.D. J.C.L, 2003)

If you don’t know who Dunnigan is, look him up.

I also think it important to see the full context of Dunnigan’s review:

catholicexchange.com/2004/01/10/93669/

Cardinal Dulles stated:

“Recent popes, Dulles conceded, beginning with John XXIIII, seem to have taken quasi-abolitionist positions on both matters. Yet used sparingly and with safeguards to protect the interests of justice, Dulles argued, both the death penalty and war have, over the centuries, been recognized by the church as legitimate, sometimes even obligatory, exercises of state power. The momentum of “internal solidification,” he said, may lead to some reconsideration of these (recent changes in) social teachings.”

I think this one by Hardon, next, is very important in the context that Ender and others are stating:

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J., considered one of the most prominent Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century.

“There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.” “Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.” (2)

“Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium.” (2)

“Equally important is the Pope’s (Pius XII) insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity.” " . . . the Church’s teaching on ‘the coercive power of legitimate human authority’ is based on ‘the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.’ It is wrong, therefore ‘to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.’ On the contrary, they have ‘a general and abiding validity.’ (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp 81-2)."

 

[dudleysharp]

I think you are *not *trying to be fair, or respectful, or open to rational dialogue, and I don’t appreciate that (and I’d bet others feel the same way). I think there is usually an inverse relation between bluster and substance, and you present an awful lot of bluster.

and you are in error.

 

[Ender]

Oh, that’s it? That’s really the only point you wanted to make? That’s your end point? You have no further point to make in this thread, just that “the Church herself…gives significance to Gen. 9:6 and [that there is a two-millenial] context in which she applies it”? That is your point in this thread?

Over the course of this thread I have made a number of points; that comment was addressed to only one of them, which is that this is not some random, proof-texted passage that I have selected and to which I have given my personal interpretation. Rather, that it is a passage that is frequently cited by the Church.

Anyway, to analyze your claim: "I cited it to point out a) that it is not I but -]the Church herself/-] Cardinal Dulles himself who gives significance to that passage …

This shouldn’t be all that controversial. Dulles was merely explaining a fact of Church teaching. It was a teaching moment, one you could benefit from heeding.

"gives significance"? - that’s a bold claim - sure, it’s holy scripture, obviously it’s ‘significant’ to the Church]

Does this really strike you as a significant objection? Obviously all scripture is significant but the Church just as obviously gives special significance to some passages over others. Gen 9:6 is one of those passages.

***what ***context? your citation doesn’t tell us anything, not one thing, about ‘context’ that is relevant to resolving the issue in this thread!]."

Oh. I thought from the fact that Dulles was talking specifically about the death penalty and cited Gen 9:5-6 and Rom 13:1-4 as scripture teachings that formed Catholic thought on the subject that the context couldn’t be much more obvious.

Ender

 

[frantony]

There are three possible answers to this “problem.” First - and what seems most likely to me - is that the position expressed in 2267 is a prudential opinion and does not rise to the level of Church doctrine, therefore the Church has not contradicted herself. Second, the doctrine is clearly not infallible and the Church has never claimed to be correct about everything, only those doctrines which are either proclaimed or taught as infallible. Third, there is no contradiction.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)
You need a better understanding of infallibility. The Church does not claim infallibility in everything.
No, it doesn’t. It means that (possibly) ***a ***mistake was made and furthermore the Catechism has never been proclaimed as infallible.
Your animus toward the Church is clouding your judgment. You may disagree with the position I have defended but no one can reasonably claim to be unsure as to what that position is.

*Now when the Catholic Church get cornered about errors in their teachings in Catechism of the Catholic Church, and logic behind Inquisitions and selling of indulgences for financing the building of St. Peters in Rome, they conveniently hide behind the excuse that they are not doctrines of the Church.

What are the doctrines of the Church? Are they more important or less important than the CCC?

If doctrines are more important than what is in the CCC, the Catholic Church should have included important life and death issues like disposition on Capital punishments for murderers, burning at stake of heretics, etc.- among the doctrines; and issues concerning celibacy / virginity of saints, and the number of children they had, etc. in the CCC.*

Ender