Death penalty: For or against?

[Xenon777]

I favor the Traditionalist take on the faith, as it makes FAR more sense, than the modernist take. I am of the view that the Church is going too liberal in its views. and i believe the Catechism are of varying levels of fallibility

 

[TMC]

Son, I have seen stuff like what happens if a man tries ending his life with a shotgun to the face…but fails. I have seen footage where a women was butchered by her husband over adultery, as she bleeds out. I have seen some of the darkest things one can imagine. I have see what evil can do to a soul. Some people are truly unforgiving, out of their own freewill

LOL. That’s cute. I am a retired Marine combat vet, “son,” I don’t need to go to the “chans” to think I understand death. It’s not cool, and its not entertainment. If you want to believe the death penalty is justified, that is your business, but the Church says its not. Maybe check out the Catechism and leave the creepy chan stuff alone for a while.

 

[StudentMI]

I favor the Traditionalist take on the faith, as it makes FAR more sense, than the modernist take. I am of the view that the Church is going too liberal in its views. and i believe the Catechism are of varying levels of fallibility

The modernist take?

 

[kapp19]

I am sorry, but your position that “the Church teaches this now” is just not true. The Church’s teaching on capital punishment is just as established as Her teaching on contraception, no matter how many updates to the Catechism are made.

Take the “updated” version of the Catechism paragraphs on CP and change the topic, you can use the same method to teach against almost any settled doctrine. Like women’s ordination, for instance.

It is flabbergasting to me how many people have been misled on this point. As if St. Pius V (who had sodomitic clergy decapitated) was not a merciful and wise servant of the Lord, and now we enlightened and most merciful ones have the answers.

 

[TMC]

I am sorry, but your position that “the Church teaches this now” is just not true. The Church’s teaching on capital punishment is just as established as Her teaching on contraception, no matter how many updates to the Catechism are made.

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that the Catechism is no longer correct, or are you saying that the Church has always taught that capital punishment is unjustified?

 

[Xenon777]

Mankind has been fully catechized

What? We are in the worst Catechism crisis of our times. Many Catholics are poorly catechized, I myself was given a VERY VAGUE catechism. Like the Charasmatic movement, with the speaking in tongues. It is absolutely RUBBISH and the fact the Church tolerates is beyond me. If anyone has something to say about the Charasmatic movement, consider this: When people were speaking tongues in the bible they spoke actual LANGUAGES. They are the least of the Charasmatic gifts, other being healing the sick, raising the dead etc. There was a Catholic saint who went to China speaking fluent Chinese, DESPITE never having been taught it. Also why is it that “speaking tongues” is the most often seen gift among, and not the raising of the dead, or healing of the sick? Also the Charismatic gifts are NOT for laity. ONLY for the religious leaders to use. This speaking tongues nonsense is an absolute insult to the integrity of the Church

 

[kapp19]

I am saying that the Church has always taught - with the same force and frequency and strength of argument as on contraception - that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil.

Catechisms come and go. The universal catechism we are using now (only recently published - by JP2) has had its integrity threatened by the thought that it can be “updated” at will. This is not normal. I have counted 16 different ways to read the new paragraphs on CP - and it’s true, there can be continuity read in them (and we owe the Holy Father, who has many merits, that benefit of the doubt) - but the ambiguity is unhelpful. Doctrines do not “develop” in a lateral way - meaning, once something is settled, a development somewhere else cannot reverse the position which has been determined. For example, an increased understanding in the dignity of women cannot be used to say that now the Church’s teaching about Holy Orders can be “developed” to include women’s ordination. You will find that you can basically insert these terms into the same paragraphs (on CP) and get the same kind of result. (Women’s ordination also seems - for what it’s worth - to belong only to the ordinary magisterial teaching of the Church… It is at least arguable that it has not been defined - yet to reduce infallibility only to definitions is not how the Deposit of Faith works.)

To the OP’s point, CP can help people come to terms with the fact that now eternity stands before them… and if they do not repent now, as long as help is given (as it was in the Papal States, for instance) then it is a soul so hardened in sin it does not seem they are open to mercy at all. This is one way to think about it at least. Fr. Rutler has a good article on it - you can find it online: Hanging Concentrates the Mind

 

[Xenon777]

Catechisms are NOT infallible, or are infallible to varying degrees. One Catechism that is considered TRULY reliable, is the Catechism of Trent. Also the modern catechism states you can be outside the Church and be saved, when in fact to be saved, you MUST be in a State of Grace, which can ONLY happen withing the ONE, TRUE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH founded By Christ. There is NO SALVATION OUTSIDE the Church. Never has been, never will be.

 

[TMC]

I am saying that the Church has always taught - with the same force and frequency and strength of argument - that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil.

I don’t think that is the right way to look at it. The Church has always taught that unjustified killing is intrinsically evil. The Church used to teach that the death penalty could be justified killing under some circumstances, and was therefore an exception to the prohibition on killing. The Church now teaches that the death penalty is not justified, and therefore not an exception.

I agree that the core teaching is unchanged, but the core teaching is “thou shalt not kill,” not “the death penalty is justified.”

I don’t know about your “16 ways” comment, but I don’t find the teaching ambiguous. “the death penalty is inadmissible” Pretty clear.

 

[o_mlly]

No sin is unforgivable.

There is one.

 

[TMC]

So you reject the Church’s teaching (apparently on at least two topics). That’s up to you, of course, but the Church teaches what the Church says it teaches.

 

[Xenon777]

Where did I reject it?

 

[kapp19]

Okay - last reply - I would recommend reading Dr. Feser on the topic… He goes through everything.

I agree that unjustified killing is intrinsically evil. The whole point is that there is justification when capital punishment is being used… The justification is that it is proportionate punishment for a crime committed. The Hebrew word of the 5th Commandment is very specific - “ratsach” - it certainly does not include this kind of killing (which is in fact encouraged in the Torah all over the place, including in legislation).

The problem with what you are saying is that it implies the Church could, for 2000 years, have gotten something like this wrong, when teaching about it so frequently, basing Herself on Scripture. That is a BIG problem.

The paragraphs are not at all clear, based on the simple fact that many people disagree about what they mean who are earnestly trying to make sense of them.

Here are the blog posts from Feser - you could comb through the many follow-ups he did, including in other publications, along with rebuttals, counter-rebuttals, and also his book, which I highly recommend:

Edward Feser: Search results for death+penalty

 

[TMC]

Right there in the post I replied to. You are saying that you do not accept the Catechism’s teaching on at least two topics, death penalty and EENS.

 

[StudentMI]

As long as life persists there is no sin that can not be forgiven.

 

[TMC]

I appreciate the offer, but I don’t think our difference is due to my lack of education or research.

We seem to be disagreeing over what it means for the Church to change a teaching. Many Church teachings have developed over time. Some people find that troubling, but it need not be. The Church holds to core teachings and develops the details and application of those core teachings. Sometimes identifying the “core” of a teaching is difficult to do, and is only apparent in retrospect. EENS is a good example - the teaching has developed over the years and been applied differently at different points in history. The development in the Church’s teaching on capital punishment is another development that does not disturb the Church’s core teachings.

 

[Genesis315]

If the novel CCC paragraph is merely a practical consideration, then it should be given due respect, but it can be disagreed with in good conscience (the realm of practical dictates is where conscience is supreme). If it is meant as abstract doctrine on a fixed point of morality, then it is an utter novelty found nowhere in Scripture or Tradition (and instead universally contradicted by them) until a random speech by Pope Francis (which is its only citation). If that is the case, we are bound to reject it, as St. Vincent de Lerins explained in his Commonitory (ironically the same work cited in the document modifying the CCC paragraph):

St. Vincent:

The Notes of a true Catholic.

[48.] This being the case, he is the true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, who loves the Church, who loves the Body of Christ, who esteems divine religion and the Catholic Faith above every thing, above the authority, above the regard, above the genius, above the eloquence, above the philosophy, of every man whatsoever; who sets light by all of these, and continuing steadfast and established in the faith, resolves that he will believe that, and that only, which he is sure the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient time; but that whatsoever new and unheard-of doctrine he shall find to have been furtively introduced by some one or another, besides that of all, or contrary to that of all the saints, this, he will understand, does not pertain to religion, but is permitted as a trial, being instructed especially by the words of the blessed Apostle Paul, who writes thus in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, There must needs be heresies, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you: 1 Corinthians 2:9 as though he should say, This is the reason why the authors of Heresies are not immediately rooted up by God, namely, that they who are approved may be made manifest; that is, that it may be apparent of each individual, how tenacious and faithful and steadfast he is in his love of the Catholic faith.

Note, such error being introduced is a trial by God, even if introduced by our authorized teachers as St. Vincent says earlier in the same text:

[28]…And why, I pray you, does not God forbid to be taught what God forbids to be heard? For the Lord, your God, tries you, to know whether you love Him with all your heart and with all your soul. The reason is clearer than day why Divine Providence sometimes permits certain doctors of the Churches to preach new doctrines — That the Lord your God may try you; he says.

That being said, we should where possible give our authorized teachers the benefit of the doubt and receive what they say in light of Tradition. If possible, we should treat the new paragraph as a poorly worded practical dictate.

This is, for example, what Cardinal Gomez did here (I quoted his words in a prior post):

Pope Francis, Death Penalty, and Infallibility Moral Theology

Just add, I found Cardinal Gomez’ clarification of Pope Francis’ change helpful: He affirms the Church’s irreformable and revealed doctrine: The Scriptures, along with saints and teachers in the Church’s tradition, justify the death penalty as a fitting punishment for those who commit evil or take another person’s life. And the Church has always recognized that governments and civil authorities have the right to carry out executions in order to protect their citizens’ lives and punish those g…

 

[Peeps]

I don’t think in the United States, at least, “mankind has now been widely catechised and has had ample opportunity to embrace God .” (quote from Bluebright)

I agree with Xenon777–we are very badly catechized, at least in the U.S.

Many children of all economic levels grow up with no religious or moral/ethical teaching at all, other than what they see and hear on TV/computer.

My children attended/graduated from a private prep school–75% of the companies in our city have CEOs/founders who graduated from that school! That school definitely educates the the “privileged” (and in our case, the lucky!) ones of this world!

When my older daughter was in Godspell at that school (now in her late 30s, she is an entertainment industry professional), the cast was supposed to, at one point in the play, sing “Jesus Loves Me.”

NOT ONE STUDENT other than my daughter knew the song. She had to teach it to them.

And when she was a Senior, one of their classmates was killed in a horrific car acident along with his girlfriend (he was drunk and speeding). The funeral was held at the large Catholic church that his family belonged to (but never attended).

Other than my daughter, no one in the class had ever been in any church in their lives.

These kids were from families where flying to Europe for Christmas was routine, and spending a weekend in their private chalet in Colorado was normal. (Some of the kids’ bedroom suites in their homes were bigger than our whole house!)

But they knew nothing about God and religion, other than “it’s all a myth.”

I think this is true for most children. My nephews know nothing, in spite of attending a “Christian” school for the first several years of their lives. Just last week, I was chatting with one of my nephews, and complimented him for reading the Bible aloud to his Granddad. He told me that he didn’t really know much about the Bible!

I’ll admit that my own daughter (my younger daughter, not the entertainment pro) knows very little about Christianity. She was still living at home when Peeps and Mr. Peeps were ousted from our Evangelical (Protestant) church, and the circumstances were so horrific that she has never been able to bring herself to trust in any church. She graduated from a Catholic college and attended Mass with her friends because they were in the choir (10 p.m. Sunday nights!–the Mass was very crowded at that time!). But she knows very little, and I don’t know if she is aware of Christian teaching, including Catholic Christian teaching, on the death penalty. She is extremely anti-abortion, though, more so now that she is struggling with infertifility after 12 years of marriage.

I don’t think most Americans could answer the simplest questions about God, the Church, the Bible, the Catechism, or even simple good and evil questions. I think most Americans would use the cop-out that “I believe everyone should be able to believe whatever they want about religion,” and think this sounds very intellectual and open-minded.

 

[o_mlly]

As long as life persists there is no sin that can not be forgiven.

Now, that’s better and quite different to, “No sin is unforgiveable.”

For the impenitent, blasphemy against the Spirit: the sin of attributing to Satan what is the work of the Spirit of God is unforgivable.

 

[TMC]

If the novel CCC paragraph is merely a practical consideration, then it should be given due respect, but it can be disagreed with in good conscience (the realm of practical dictates is where conscience is supreme).

Yes, of course, conscience reigns supreme and anyone can disagree with the Church’s teaching on the death penalty if their conscience dictates that. But that is no different than other Church teachings - each person’s well-formed conscience must be their guide. This particular teaching is not optional, disagreeing with it is dissenting from Church teaching just like dissenting from other Church teachings.

There seems to be a movement to say that this particular teaching is optional or not real or just a suggestion. None of those things are true. It is Church teaching.