Death Penalty-magisterium-vs-left-and-right

[manualman]

So Ender, would it be fair to say that if the catechism considered slavery fundamentally incompatible with the dignity of the human person (no citation, but I’d not be surprised if it did), you’d take issue with that too based on the rather laissez faire attitude taken by the magisterium towards slavery prior to around 1800?

Or perhaps over time holy and inspired leaders of the church make true inferences from truly revealed principles? Isn’t that how doctrine unfolds over time? Are you SO sure that prior teaching ENDORSED the DP or did it simply not yet come to the point of realizing its limited applicability? That’s certainly the way I see slavery addressed and the issue of usury taking on nuance as the science of economics progressed. I see no reason to believe the approach to the death penalty can’t become more developed over time in a similar way.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

But I do understand why you don’t want to debate the ideas expressed in 2267 … there really is no way to sustain them.

What would debate do? What would your “winning” a debate with me accomplish? I have nothing to do with promulgation of the Catechism. Sure, there are any number of people who don’t accept the Catechism or parts of it. You ought to form a solid front with them, let the Vatican know that it is wrong, debate it if need be, win the debate if you are as confident as you seem to be, and have the Vatican acknowledge its errors so that they might reverse what they’ve already approved.

You will not be in small company, I assure you, about that or other parts of the Catechism.

 

[Ender]

What would debate do? What would your “winning” a debate with me accomplish?

You would come to better understand what the Church teaches on this subject … and what she doesn’t.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

You would come to better understand what the Church teaches on this subject … and what she doesn’t.

I am well content with what the Church teaches and what it doesn’t teach. I take my guidance from the Church and do not choose to start a quarrel with it about what it holds to be true and what I might hold to be true contrary to its teachings.

You believe that you know better than the Church does, that you are right and that it isn’t. Fair enough, but I doubt that you will convince me to doubt the Church and even if you could make a persuasive argument that the Church is teaching error, it’s a path down which I choose not to go.

 

[Tsuwano]

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.

 

[Ender]

I am well content with what the Church teaches and what it doesn’t teach.

It’s been one of my points that you don’t know what the Church teaches. It’s rather like a discussion on another thread about what the conscience does or does not allow; both sides think they are representing the Church’s position on the issue. The same is true here.

You believe that you know better than the Church does, that you are right and that it isn’t. Fair enough, but I doubt that you will convince me to doubt the Church and even if you could make a persuasive argument that the Church is teaching error, it’s a path down which I choose not to go.

I had a person once tell me he wouldn’t believe in miracles if he beheld the burning bush. Yours is the same mindset: your position is based on believing what you choose to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary.

For example: the first part of section 2267, which claims that the traditional teaching of the Church allowed capital punishment “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings” is incorrect. This restriction was never part of Church teaching. Nor, before you raise the objection, is this merely my opinion:

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. (Kevin L. Flannery, Professor, Pontifical Gregorian Univ. of Rome)

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It’s been one of my points that you don’t know what the Church teaches.

Your opinion, fine.

Yours is the same mindset: your position is based on believing what you choose to believe regardless of evidence to the contrary.

And, you, of course, choose to believe that you know more than the Church does. Oh, well.

For example: the first part of section 2267, which claims that the traditional teaching of the Church allowed capital punishment “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings” is incorrect. This restriction was never part of Church teaching. Nor, before you raise the objection, is this merely my opinion:

The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. (Kevin L. Flannery, Professor, Pontifical Gregorian Univ. of Rome)

Did not, perhaps, but does now. I’ll stick to JPII, you may go with some professor’s opinion.

This is NOT the 16th Century, no matter how much you wish it were. Sorry. But, believe what you will.

 

[Ender]

And, you, of course, choose to believe that you know more than the Church does.

No, I believe I know more about this than you do.

I’ll stick to JPII, you may go with some professor’s opinion.

It is a question of going with the truth whoever speaks it, but speaking of opinions, that is clearly what the third part of 2267 is - opinion. The determination of the capabilities of modern penal systems is not a theological question, it is a practical one and the conclusions one draws about those capabilities is open to debate. To defend either position would require references to statistics to make the point that the public is or is not sufficiently protected by prison sentences. It simply isn’t a question of morality and one can as legitimately disagree about the conclusion the Catechism come to as one can disagree with the proposition that Ted Williams was a better hitter than Ty Cobb.

Ender

 

[manygift1spirit]

I have read Shea’s column and this thread.

While I have issues with the column, I have no doubt that if Shea read this thread, he’d nod and think “I told you so!”

 

[Ender]

While I have issues with the column, I have no doubt that if Shea read this thread, he’d nod and think “I told you so!”

Perhaps, but I’m still waiting for someone to say “I told you so … because.” That is, I’m still waiting for someone willing to defend 2267 with something more compelling than “It’s in the Catechism.”

Ender

 

[manualman]

For example: the first part of section 2267, which claims that the traditional teaching of the Church allowed capital punishment “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings” is incorrect. This restriction was never part of Church teaching. Nor, before you raise the objection, is this merely my opinion:

Perhaps you and your professor simply read it wrong. You seem to think that the catechism is claiming that there has historically been an explicit restriction on the DP restricting its use to certain circumstances. You don’t seem to have considered the changes in society over the centuries. In 1500 there would be no need or prompt to evaluate the necessity of the DP versus secure and reliable life imprisonment, since it would be nearly inconcievalbe economically and practically. Only when society advanced to the point where states had the resources and political/legal stability to permanently imprison dangerous offenders could this be a viable alternative. No surprise that the question didn’t arrive until then. Seems to me that THIS is the meaning of the quote. The bishops (rather a lot of them were involved, you realize) appear to be making a statement in the catechism that past limited support for the DP must be seen in light of the lack of alternatives present at the time. That support simply can’t be translated forward to today without recognizing and evaluating changed circumstances.

You dodged the comparison I raised above. Church teaching unfolded over time in a VERY similar manner on the topic of usury. ANY interest charges might have been usurous in a primarily barter economy with no currency inflation, but the practical side had to be reexamined once economies became based on inflationary currency. People like you can easily today pull out old Church documents and condemn anybody charging interest on any sort of loan. But you’d be wrong there too.

Whether the issue at hand is slavery, usury, DP, abortion, contraception or whatever… Scholarship and research are useful and crucial. But when controversy and disagreement arise, best look to the chair of Peter for a decision. That’s my stance.

 

[Ender]

Perhaps you and your professor simply read it wrong.

That is always a possibility. I make a distinction between interpretations and opinions: interpretations can be correct or incorrect, opinions cannot be either. It is always valid to challenge an interpretation but challenging opinions is usually futile.

You seem to think that the catechism is claiming that there has historically been an explicit restriction on the DP restricting its use to certain circumstances.

This statement isn’t completely clear to me but yes, I believe the catechism is claiming that traditional teaching included a restriction on the use of capital punishment to “where it was necessary for protection.” My response was that this claim is incorrect.

You don’t seem to have considered the changes in society over the centuries. In 1500 there would be no need or prompt to evaluate the necessity of the DP versus secure and reliable life imprisonment, since it would be nearly inconcievalbe economically and practically.

This could explain why such a restriction was historically absent but the catechism didn’t make that argument; it claimed that such a restriction existed even when its application was “inconceivable.”

Only when society advanced to the point where states had the resources and political/legal stability to permanently imprison dangerous offenders could this be a viable alternative. No surprise that the question didn’t arrive until then.

This is another argument for why such a restriction was historically absent … but 2267 claims that such a restriction was part of the traditional teaching even though there is zero evidence for such a tradition. Furthermore - and what seems fatal to your argument - life in prison was used much longer ago than your theory allows. It is not, as you allege (and as 2267 would require), a modern development. It is ironic that you chose the year 1500 as an example to support your argument because of this statement from the Fifth Lateran Council in 1514 which implies the use of life sentences to be fairly common:

…but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. (Session 9)

Seems to me that THIS is the meaning of the quote. The bishops (rather a lot of them were involved, you realize) appear to be making a statement in the catechism that past limited support for the DP must be seen in light of the lack of alternatives present at the time. That support simply can’t be translated forward to today without recognizing and evaluating changed circumstances.

You claim that in the past there was limited support for the death penalty but you nowhere provide evidence that support was in fact limited by anything other than it be judiciously used and not applied in a spirit of hatred and anger.

You dodged the comparison I raised above. Church teaching unfolded over time in a VERY similar manner on the topic of usury.

Usury is a different topic that is not relevant here. It is true that teachings unfold over time and if you can show how 2267 developed that would be useful. In fact, however, 2267 seems not so much a development of doctrine as a repudiation of it nor is there any clue as to how it could have developed; there are no footnotes in either 2267 or Evangelium Vitae to explain on what it was based.

Ender

 

[manualman]

Ender, you argue well. You make good points about how the addition of such an unprecedented principle as that in the catechism on the DP ought to be fleshed out with a detailed explanation and discussion.

Not so much on the historic implications of “life imprisonment.” I know just enough to know that being a galley slave “for life” is precious little different than a death sentence. Certainly a newly sentenced death row inmate today would have a longer life expectancy! I suspect it would be similar in the ‘prisons’ of the day.

Overall, I suspect you’ll get the discussions and evaluations you want eventually, but my bet is that the catechism is the beginings of a new unfolding of doctrine based on human dignity rather than an aberration of a few bishops and popes.

 

[Ender]

Overall, I suspect you’ll get the discussions and evaluations you want eventually, but my bet is that the catechism is the beginings of a new unfolding of doctrine based on human dignity rather than an aberration of a few bishops and popes.

I would very much like to have a discussion on the question of human dignity and capital punishment, given that the source of man’s dignity is that he is made in the image of God. And we know that man is made in the image of God because it says so in Genesis 9:6 … which we are told is the very reason the penalty for murder is death.

Do you ever wonder why, given that all those bishops, the pope and the catechism all oppose capital punishment, it is so difficult to defend what is contained in 2267? How is it that, given what seems to be support of the entire Church hierarchy, there is no compelling argument supporting the content of that passage other than “it’s in the catechism”?

Ender

 

[manualman]

Fair enough. You and me, no outside quotes, just discussion about what we know of the character and nature of God. I’ll go first.

Murder is a heinous sin, but its hardly the worst thing humans do. I seem to recall Jesus saying that of all the sins, God finds lies the most detestable of all. At the human level, we have a hard time seeing reality the way God does. We’re too biased. And the WORST bias of all is our tendency to downplay the sins we personally are fond of and exaggerate the sins committed by THEM (i.e. not us). But objectively speaking ALL sin is intolerable to God. This whole world got messed up this bad because two people ate an APPLE, for crying out loud. The tiniest sin is enough to make us deserve eternity in hell. Since the fall, humans simply cannot achieve true goodness on our own willpower and strength. We ONLY have hope because Christ redeemed us, took on the consequences of our sin and broke its power and hold on us and subsequently offered us the Grace to be more than we were.

Given this basic reality about the human condition, I simply cannot understand how a christian can single out murder as THE single and only sin for which the sacrifice of Christ is somehow not sufficient to potentially redeem the sinner? Perhaps you can and will share?

 

[curlycool89]

Perhaps, but I’m still waiting for someone to say “I told you so … because.” That is, I’m still waiting for someone willing to defend 2267 with something more compelling than “It’s in the Catechism.”

Ender

5 words:
The Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum.

From part 3 (The Doctrinal Value of the Text, and keep in mind that this is Pope John Paul II speaking):

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved on June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illuminated by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

…

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Luke 22:32), as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith.

Basically, that’s enough invocations to see a declaration of infallibility. He declared by virtue of his Apostolic Authority as the Successor of Peter, declared it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith, and cited Luke 22:32. Luke 22:32 is where Jesus prays for Peter that his faith may not fail, and is often cited as a means of referring to the charism of infallibility that is enjoyed by the Pope in all matters of faith and moral.

 

[Ender]

Fair enough. You and me, no outside quotes, just discussion about what we know of the character and nature of God.

Wait a minute … if I give up outside quotes I give up my strongest argument. If I can’t cite what the Church teaches then it’s just my opinion against yours and there is no chance of progress.

Murder is a heinous sin, but its hardly the worst thing humans do.
I seem to recall Jesus saying that of all the sins, God finds lies the most detestable of all.

I don’t think it really matters which sin is the most detestable although I’m going to stick with murder being the worst:

*The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. … *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! (Catechism of Trent)

Given this basic reality about the human condition, I simply cannot understand how a christian can single out murder as THE single and only sin for which the sacrifice of Christ is somehow not sufficient to potentially redeem the sinner?

No one has made such an argument and it is simply mistaken to assume that a person who is sentenced to death cannot be redeemed. We know for a fact that the “good thief” was redeemed even as his sentence was being carried out. Given that all that is required for redemption is a change of heart there is nothing whatever to prevent someone on death row from undergoing that conversion. Why should we believe that salvation requires a long life and peaceful death? People are killed every day in accidents or have their lives dramatically shortened by disease - the felon who’s days are ended by execution is neither more nor less unredeemable than they.

Ender

 

[Ender]

5 words:
The Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum.

Basically, that’s enough invocations to see a declaration of infallibility.

There is a problem with this because infallibility does not extend to opinions and the third part of section 2267 is just that, an opinion. It states:

*“Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it …” *

Clearly, the evaluation of the effectiveness of a country’s penal system is not a theological question and cannot be determined by evaluating any Church teaching whatever. In determining whether the claim is true one would have to do a survey of criminal justice statistics, hardly a matter of faith and morals.

That statement alone is enough to demonstrate that the entire Catechism cannot be considered infallible but the problem is greater than that since 2267 is in conflict not just with the traditional teaching of the Church but with other parts of the same Catechism.

2266 states that the primary objective of punishment is retribution. Protection is a valid objective but it is a secondary one so, contra 2267, the severity of the punishment cannot be determined solely by whether or not it is needed to meet a secondary objective. It must be determined by whether or not it meets the obligation of the primary objective.

And there is more. What are we to make of section 2260 - which cites Gen 9:5-6? Those are the passages on which the Church based her teaching on the acceptability of capital punishment, and, given that the Catechism added the comment that “This teaching remains necessary for all time”, what are we to make of that? How can I accept both 2260 (which repeats the traditional teaching that the life of a murderer is forfeit) and 2267 (which says that the life of a murderer is protected)? How does one accept both 2266 (which says that retribution is the primary objective of punishment) and 2267 (which ignores the primary objective altogether)? How does it make more sense to accept 2267 and jettison quite literally everything the Church ever wrote on the subject rather than to accept everything else and to understand 2267 as a prudential recommendation that using capital punishment in current society causes more problems than it solves?

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

How does one accept both 2266 (which says that retribution is the primary objective of punishment) and 2267 (which ignores the primary objective altogether)? How does it make more sense to accept 2267 and jettison quite literally everything the Church ever wrote on the subject rather than to accept everything else and to understand 2267 as a prudential recommendation that using capital punishment in current society causes more problems than it solves?

Regardless, the State is under no obligation to impose the death penalty for murder or rape or adultery and the other OT capital crimes. Courts and juries have discretion in imposing penalties, regardless what was done centuries ago. Keep in mind that the Church has not said that the death penalty is forbidden.

Besides, life imprisonment is certainly retribution for those crimes.

 

[Ender]

Regardless, the State is under no obligation to impose the death penalty for murder or rape or adultery and the other OT capital crimes. Courts and juries have discretion in imposing penalties, regardless what was done centuries ago. Keep in mind that the Church has not said that the death penalty is forbidden.

Perhaps, but none of this responds to the points I raised. Courts do have discretion in imposing penalties - within certain limits in that a punishment is unjust that is either too severe or too lenient. Regarding what was done centuries ago, a punishment that was just then is just today since morality does not change from time to time or place to place, so if capital punishment for murder was a just punishment in the past it is equally just today.

Besides, life imprisonment is certainly retribution for those crimes.

Yes, well this is the question: is life in prison an adequate punishment for murder? Based on what the Church teaches (excluding 2267) the answer would seem to be no; based on 2267 it would seem to be yes. This puts us back at the same point as before: either we accept 2267 and ignore everything else or we accept everything else and understand 2267 as a prudential recommendation.

Ender