Death penalty: For or against?

[StudentMI]

If that is the case, we are bound to reject it,

I would be hesitant to reject something taught by the Church’s authority. Obedience to such is a virtue.

Sorry to say as well, going into who is a ‘true’ Catholic is close to if not exactly a no true Scotsman fallacy.

 

[StudentMI]

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

Given that we are alive and speaking, I don’t think it was necessary to add that as life persists part. I think you’re being a bit too nitpicky.

 

[Xenon777]

I just told you, the Catechisms have VARYING levels of infallibility. The Church has held forever that Capital punishment is not intrinsically evil. No Catechism can change that. These teachings once settled, CANNOT BE CHANGED. If the Church decrees CP to be not intrinsically evil. It is officially settled, like how gay marriage is not marriage. If the catechism were to say that gay marriage were a right, would you agree? The Catechisms says so, so it MUST be true! if the Catechism supports contraceptives and abortion, Would it be true? the Catechism says so so it must be true!

 

[Vico]

I believe some people become CONVINCED that EVIL is GOOD and that they seldom, if ever saved, because they outright REFUSE to repent. I remember talking to someone on 4chan, they were a former Christian, who was drawn away from the faith, by being scandalized by those of Bad faith and became fascist ideologue. He said he knew God was who we was, but that He would GLADLY be thrown in Hell "rather than being with us Fa*****. When I tried to call him out on it, he said “slit your wrists subhuman haha”

All actual sin is willfully choosing a lesser good over the greater moral good. Of course it is always error.

 

[TMC]

I just told you, the Catechisms have VARYING levels of infallibility. T

Infallibility is not the issue. LOTS of Church teaching has not been declared infallible, but that does not make it optional.

Its your business if you disagree with the Church’s teaching on the death penalty -you have to follow your conscience. But don’t kid yourself, you are disagreeing with the Church’s teaching.

 

[Genesis315]

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.

You’re confusing two things: Doctrine, and the application of doctrine to particular circumstances. Conscience is supreme in the latter, but bound in the former.

For example, the Church lays out certain elements that make war just in her just war doctrine. Where conscience comes into play is determining whether a particular war is just or not given the circumstances. That’s why the Church also says with regard to her just war doctrine: “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

Traditionally, the same has been true for the death penalty. The Church has always taught that public authority has the inherent power to justly inflict death as a proportionate punishment. Conscience comes into play when determining whether it is justified or not in a particular case or in particular circumstances. It is fine to say that current circumstances do not justify the death penalty, but someone can disagree with this in good conscience. It was the same in the past, when a Pope ordered the execution of various individuals–one can disagree with those cases in good conscience.

However, one cannot call the death penalty intrinsically evil in good conscience, since the Church has always upheld the opposite as found in Scripture and Tradition.

As a parallel example, Pope Pius XII in a speech said “the idea of war as an apt and proportionate means of solving international conflicts is now out of date.” (Christmas Message 1944). This is no different than Pope Francis saying the same about the death penalty. The former was treated as a practical judgment given the circumstances and so should the latter, otherwise, both would be contrary to the Church’s perennial and unchangeable doctrine.

 

[puer.dei]

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.

That might be adequate justification if there were no danger of executing an innocent person.

 

[Genesis315]

I would be hesitant to reject something taught by the Church’s authority. Obedience to such is a virtue.

Sorry to say as well, going into who is a ‘true’ Catholic is close to if not exactly a no true Scotsman fallacy.

We should be hesitant. We should treat the instruction of our authorized teachers with a special respect (“obsequium religiosum.”). But what happens when things taught by the Church’s authority contradict other things also taught by the Church’s authority? Not everything the authorities do is infallible. If, a bishop, including the Pope, were to promote error, we would be bound to not accept it. The paragraph I posted from St. Vincent tells us the traditional approach to a contradiction–choose the older, universally taught doctrine, to the novel one. Likewise, not everything they say and do is of equal authority (the Catechism, by design, simply leaves doctrines as they are). As Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.

Many of the propositions in the Catechism are taught by the Church with absolute certainty, others with less. Cardinal Ratzinger addressed this point as follows:

The catechism must certainly avoid giving the impression that all the statements it contains have the same degree of certainty. It would be neither practical nor desirable constantly to indicate these degrees (de fide, de fide definita, sententia communis, etc.). Rather, the doctrine’s degree of certainty should be evident from the context from the way it is stated, from the doctrinal authority of the statement.

The new Catechism paragraph comes from a speech of Pope Francis’ to a public policy advocacy group. It is about as low an authority papal statement as there can be. If it were intended as a doctrinal principle, given its novelty, its degree of certainty would be practically non-existent (if not classified as outright error). If a practical dictate, it also would not have an absolute degree of certainty (no one is omniscient or infallible in such cases).

 

[Xenon777]

Agreed. I learned more about my faith watching youtube channel called sensus fidelium than I did in catechism class. I admit I am not the smartest in regards faith. I was never taught the faith growing up, and my mind is shot from being angry for so many years. I hope I can join a religious order, because God saved me from falling into despair and showed me mercy. I wish I knew more. The funny thing is I used to be smart. The called me google(name) because I was so smart. But, now, I have trouble remembering things. I deserve it after all the suffering I caused Him. I thought he hated me. I was angry at Him for no reason. We really need to start better catechism methods, otherwise we will become mostly lukewarm.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I am against the death penalty, in fact I was against it before the revisions of the catechism. I don’t think that capital punishment is necessarily always intrinsically wrong, but as I stated before, you always run the risk of executing someone who actually is innocent of a crime they’ve been accused. Seriously, check the amount of people that have been exonerated after they were executed, one is too high and it’s way more than one.

 

[o_mlly]

Given that we are alive and speaking, I don’t think it was necessary to add that as life persists part. I think you’re being a bit too nitpicky.

Not so. Given the thread’s title, the prisoner whose heart is hardened may for a time resist the grace of final penitence; the death penalty arbitrarily shortens the Holy Spirit’s time to accomplish his conversion. The notion that imposing the death penalty accelerates one’s conversion is to presume the state is godlike in disposing the eternal soul of another.

 

[sealabeag]

Here’s a common statement from both Catholics-in-error and non-Catholics alike: “But that’s not an infallible dogma”, when referring to some teaching they disagree with. How does one show someone like this exactly which degree of authority something falls into? Obviously it’s easy to point out that actual infallibly pronounced dogmas are very small in number, but less easy sometimes to show exactly what level of teaching authority something falls under. A lot of people seem to think that unless something is extremely explicitly and officially pronounced, it’s up for debate as a teaching.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

I’m cautious saying very much to you, because I am guessing from your tone that you are very young, possibly still a minor. At any rate, you sound poorly informed and immature. For a start, you’d be well advised to stop reading 4chan and stop watching graphic footage of real-life violence online. Perhaps you think it’s macho to be fascinated by violence. It really isn’t. You should also educate yourself about what the Church actually teaches rather than adopting whatever position seems to confirm your various prejudices.

 

[Xenon777]

The majority of false convictions are based on eyewitness accounts. Get rid of Eyewitnesses and false convictions will be reduced by 75%! Seriously, eyewitness testimonies are THAT unreliable. Do not put much faith in them, unless there is sufficient supporting evidence. There are many cases where an apb is put out and THOUSANDS of people will have “seen the suspect”…but rarely anything comes of it. I rememeber seeing an article out in China where a women was able to open her coworker’s cell phone’s facial recognition because they looked the same. ( Some people might snicker at that thought, but c’mon guys.)

 

[Xenon777]

I said I no longer look at that stuff. It DID help,though in a way, my acceptance that death is inevitable, and life is short and fleeting. I also have accepted that the things of life are fleeting.

 

[Xenon777]

I just remebered about jayne mansfield, a very attractive woman dies in such a gruesome way. It shows in a way, that beauty counts for little in humanity. Virtue does. In choosing for a partner, one should choose the virtuous one over the hot one. Even if you need to slather them in barbecue sauce and tie a pork chop around their neck to make them appealing. Otherwise if you choose the attractive one you will be bashing your head against the wall for the next 40/50 years of your life. I remembered Jayne Mansfield because allegedly, her boy friend (ex?) was a member of Church of Satan, and had cursed her to die.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Even if you need to slather them in barbecue sauce and tie a pork chop around their neck to make them appealing.

Okay, so you’ve stopped reading 4chan and watching real-life murders. Sorry I missed that. But I honestly don’t know where you’re getting some of this stuff from. The image of slathering a woman in barbecue sauce and tying a pork chop round her neck is just bizarre.

And, in real life, people aren’t faced with these choices, as life is more complex. Attraction is based on more than just outward appearances. It’s perfectly normal to be more attracted toward someone you like and less attracted toward someone you dislike. For most people, the brain is capable of simultaneously absorbing a number of pieces of information about somebody: this person has physical attributes that I like, this person seems nice, this person makes me laugh, this person seems confident/shy/charismatic, this person is clever/talented.

For example, I don’t much like the actor Laurence Fox. I don’t think he looks very attractive, but I also get the impression he’s not a very nice person, and I don’t think he’s a very good actor. On the other hand, a lot of women say that James Corden is very attractive. He’s not exactly handsome, and he’s surely clinically obese, but he’s also funny, clever, confident, and charismatic, and he just comes across as a nice guy.

Certainly nobody should enter into a romantic relationship with someone they find as unattractive as you describe. Physical attraction and an emotional connection are both important and typically go together.

 

[Xenon777]

It is a joke, about the partner slathered in barbacue sauce. One should marry someone for virtue, EVEN if they are the most homely spouse this side of planet earth. Virtue> beauty. I would rather marry a virtuous 1/10 rather than a sinful 10/10. Looks count for little in life. Beauty fades in time, but virtue stands FAR longer. Also who is Laurence Fox and James Cordon? I don’t watch TV anymore, and don’t watch movies.I prefer music. even that is getting old. I never was a popular kid, (am an aspie) and care nothing for look. I have a morbidly humorous outlook on life ( common among aspies) and have little care for emotions. I hate team work and group activities. I am an introvert who likes companionship, yet does not want to be around people. I have no real friends as one would all them friends, only true friend was in middle school. I think of good looks as fleeting, and many attractive people like Kate Upton will be in diapers by the time they reach my parents age. I used to be interested in women. Now I find romance fleeting, and only wish to learn to embrace the SWEET, SWEET suffering that is my cross. If I could I would laugh at my own funeral, going " Hey guys, guess what? I am dead!" God is my only interest. I have no time for friends, no time for parties.No time dealing with the Machinations of relationships. My interest is in God alone. I have considered being an old fashioned anchorite, where they wall you up in a cell. and you spend the rest of your life in it.

 

[neophyte]

what the Church teaches now is clear.

It was until recently. It’s far from clear now.

 

[godisgood77]

100% against it …as the Church teaches