- Status
E
Ender
Guest
Although the topic is important and controversial, the author’s (Mark Shea) coverage wasn’t that informative. His position was pretty much: good guys support the new position in the Catechism, bad guys oppose it.
Ender
Ender
K
kentuckyliz
Guest
Which catechism? The tan one or the green one? 
B
Brendan
Guest
Here is a good article on it by Cardinal Dulles. Pope John Paul II elevated him to the College of Cardinals, even though he was not a bishop, based on his ability as a theologian.
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Not at all. Shea differentiated between minimalists and maximalists, noting that the Church, without saying that the death penalty may not be applied, has preferrred the route of desiring that its application should be restricted to absolute necessity and not seeing any necessity for it when we have the technology to keep the offender from harming again. Just because the death penalty is tolerated, it need not be applied - e.g. Jesus and the adulterous woman.
Interestingly, Shea noted that the “maximalists” are rather silent about the other Biblically allowed reasons for the death penalty - blasphemy, adultery, men and women who dress in the other sex’s clothes, and disobedient children.
I will have respect for the death penalty maximalists when they will demonstrate consistency - calling for the execution of disobedient children as well as of murderers.
D
dmelosi
Guest
I don’t know of any Catholics on here would fall into the “maximalist” category. It would be an interseting poll though.Not at all. Shea differentiated between minimalists and maximalists, noting that the Church, without saying that the death penalty may not be applied, has preferrred the route of desiring that its application should be restricted to absolute necessity and not seeing any necessity for it when we have the technology to keep the offender from harming again. Just because the death penalty is tolerated, it need not be applied - e.g. Jesus and the adulterous woman.
Interestingly, Shea noted that the “maximalists” are rather silent about the other Biblically allowed reasons for the death penalty - blasphemy, adultery, men and women who dress in the other sex’s clothes, and disobedient children.
I will have respect for the death penalty maximalists when they will demonstrate consistency - calling for the execution of disobedient children as well as of murderers.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
You apparently haven’t been following threads where a few posters have said in some detail that the Church is flat wrong in its minimalist position.
D
dmelosi
Guest
Please point me to a thread that says that.You apparently haven’t been following threads where a few posters have said in some detail that the Church is flat wrong in its minimalist position.
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Sure. Death Penalty is one, Korean Church calls for death penalty abolishment is another, and Another kind of Cafeteria Catholic? is still another. There are more that you might find on your own, but those are recent. I leave it to you to see who on this Forum are proponents of the "maximalist viewpoint. Glad to be of some help.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
I am curious. What is this “technology” that keeps offenders from harming again?
Have you seen the crime statistics inside of prisons?
Or does a criminal who is in prison who harms another criminal or a guard or a member of the prison staff not count as really harming others?
K
kingal86
Guest
I guess that’s to be expected given that the majority of posters are American, and the majority of Americans support a death penalty for murderers (especially those on the right of the US political spectrum, who are also well-represented on CAF).Sure. Death Penalty is one, Korean Church calls for death penalty abolishment is another, and Another kind of Cafeteria Catholic? is still another. There are more that you might find on your own, but those are recent. I leave it to you to see who on this Forum are proponents of the "maximalist viewpoint. Glad to be of some help.
Though even here in Britain there’s a sizeable minority of the population who want hanging back. (Though almost none of the political/legal elite does and not having a death penalty is a requirement for EU membership.)
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
God bless the EU for that, at least.
E
Ender
Guest
Shea’s “differentiation” is nonsense. Even his definition of minimalists is inaccurate but his definition of maximalists is just insulting.
This is a species of reactionary dissent from magisterial teaching that seeks to pick, cafeteria style, from the Church’s teaching and listen to the Church only insofar as her teaching is useful for upholding the proposition that the maximum number of people possible (including minors) should be subjected to capital punishment.
As I said earlier, he just divides the debate up into good guys and bad guys, which is a good indication that he has very little ammunition with which to defend his position.
If you consider personal opinions good arguments you would appreciate Shea’s article. The belief that we have the ability to “keep the offender from harming again” is as much an opinion as believing one can pick the Super Bowl winner. As for the story of the adulterous woman, using that as an argument against capital punishment amounts to nothing less than claiming that one’s personal interpretation of Scripture should matter. You may be of the opinion that the story is somehow relevant but the Church has nowhere taken that position. Why is it wrong for me to accept what the Church has always taught and right for you to choose your own interpretations?
The question of “other” reasons for the death penalty are irrelevant; the question is a diversion, much like abortion supporters wanting to change the focus of the argument from whether one is taking a human life to whether one is killing a human being. He is trying to move the argument away from a position he cannot defend: whether or not it is appropriate to execute murderers.
Ender
M
manualman
Guest
I have a confusing opinion. Bear with me. I tend to agree with the basic position of the death penalty defenders, but come to a different conclusion. I oppose the DP.
DP defenders claim that the DP is NOT inherently evil, but that its use comes down to prudential judgement on the part of secular government officials, based on certain guidelines. 20 years ago I would have seized on this as a way to defend the DP in spite of the obvious prudential judgement of JPII. Not quite 10 years ago, I preferred my own prudential judgement in opposition to the obvious prudential judgemet of Benedict XVI on the alleged ‘justness’ of a certain war just then cranking up.
I’ve since learned to take rather more seriously the prudential judgements of men FAR further on the track to sainthood than I am!
IMO DP defenders may not be ‘dissenters’ in the same way that abortion supporters are, but they are still choosing their own judgement and preference over that over the leadership God put in place in the Church. There are times in history when that sort of thing is the right call. But those making that call had better have one HECK of a perfect prayer life to claim superior judgement!
DP defenders claim that the DP is NOT inherently evil, but that its use comes down to prudential judgement on the part of secular government officials, based on certain guidelines. 20 years ago I would have seized on this as a way to defend the DP in spite of the obvious prudential judgement of JPII. Not quite 10 years ago, I preferred my own prudential judgement in opposition to the obvious prudential judgemet of Benedict XVI on the alleged ‘justness’ of a certain war just then cranking up.
I’ve since learned to take rather more seriously the prudential judgements of men FAR further on the track to sainthood than I am!
IMO DP defenders may not be ‘dissenters’ in the same way that abortion supporters are, but they are still choosing their own judgement and preference over that over the leadership God put in place in the Church. There are times in history when that sort of thing is the right call. But those making that call had better have one HECK of a perfect prayer life to claim superior judgement!
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Why is it wrong for me to accept what the Catechism says - “what the Church teaches” - and right for you to choose your interpretations on the matter? I know who Mark Shea is, and what his reputation is, in the Church. His opinions carry weight. What are your credentials - or mine, for that matter, except as two individuals jawing on this Forum, neither of whom carry any weight when it comes to deciding Church doctrine?
E
Ender
Guest
There is very good reason to believe that section 2267 in the Catechism is in fact an opinion and as such does not qualify as an authentic teaching of the Church; that is, it is not doctrine. The position was explicitly expressed by Cardinal Dulles and implied by Cardinal Ratzinger and the USCCB. Nor have I given any personal interpretation on any position I have expressed on capital punishment. All of my arguments are based on what the Church has taught.
His reputation carries no weight whatever; only his arguments matter, and in that regard - on this subject - they are deficient.
I don’t need credentials to make an argument. We’re not debating which of us is more learned but which of us has the stronger position on this topic and that will be determined by the weight of our explanations. Mr. Shea’s argument was exceptionally weak and you have said nothing to strengthen it.
Ender
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
Some knowledge of the Catechism would have helped you, though.
And you, OF COURSE, are convinced you have the stronger position, stronger than that which the Church holds. Puleeze!
Why am I not surprised that you would think that?
E
Ender
Guest
You’ve said nothing here at all, there is no argument to support 2267 or rebut the statements against it. You’ve done what Shea did, launch a personal attack against someone who opposes your position. Try responding to the arguments, after all, if your position really is the correct one you should easily be able to defend it. Why don’t you give it a try?Some knowledge of the Catechism would have helped you, though.
And you, OF COURSE, are convinced you have the stronger position, stronger than that which the Church holds. Puleeze!
Why am I not surprised that you would think that?
Ender
R
Rich_Olszewski
Guest
It is your opinion that 2267 is unsupportable. It is my opinion that the Catholic Catechism trumps any arguments you might present.
However - if your arguments are indeed valid and correct, and you feel strongly that you can defend them against the Catechism, I suggest that you write to the Vatican, perhaps starting on the level of your diocese, explain to them how theCatechism is wrong, and ask that they revise what 2267 states.
You can’t do any better than that. Then, anything I or Shea might say could be discarded.
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, I recognize this “argument”: It’s-in-the-Catechism-so-I-don’t-need-to-discuss-it, and I recognize why you cling to it, it is after all (usually) a strong position. It is also your only argument as there is no logical defense of 2267. But let’s be clear, when you say “the Catholic Catechism” what you really mean is the latest (1997) version of the Catholic Catechism, as opposed to the Catholic Catechisms of Baltimore, Pius X, Trent, and St. Thomas (or even the earlier 1992 version) with which it is not compatible.
Actually, that’s not quite correct either, because what you must also do in appealing solely to the 1997 document is to limit the discussion to section 2267 alone and ignore (at least) sections 2266 and 2260. The position that the “Catechism trumps any arguments you might present” only sounds strong on the surface, once you poke at it even a little it rapidly falls apart. But I do understand why you don’t want to debate the ideas expressed in 2267 … there really is no way to sustain them.
Ender
- Status