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

[LittleSoldier]

Keating came to the same conclusion I reached: 2267 contains opinion, not doctrine.

To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience.

Ender

I’m not sure what you mean by “prudential judgment (the only such one in the ‘Catechism’ on any topic”) but I honestly am beginning to think that the CCC should be burned. If we are able to decide for ourselves, and/or if the Church made an error in approving the current CCC, then we should be able to write our own.

Moral relativism. What is a Catholic supposed to believe? The CCC? The Magisterium? What is the Magisterium? I know it is the teaching authority of the Church, but who comprises this authority? The bishops (as in the USCCB; that can’t be correct because you said their statement was “breathtakingly wrong”), the Pope (that would be an awful lot of work being the only human being in the Magisterium), just who is it? God?

The Bible? I thought that as Catholics we are not supposed to usually use private interpretation.

How in the world could anyone believe it is acceptable to take away the life of another human being in order to punish him? This can take away his only chance for redemption. We are not “earthly princes.” We are fallible, sinning human beings who rely on the mercy of God. What gives us the right to determine that someone should die? A jury? A judge? A governor? Are some crimes so hideous that you believe death and damnation are appropriate? I thought we were supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves. I thought we were supposed to turn the other cheek and forgive over and over and over. How does that tie in?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well I would say if somebody murdered one off. Was truly sorry and asked God for forgiveness. God would not punish them in any way at all. But if we have unforgiveness and still want the death penalty for that person we would be in Sin.

Locking that person up for life should be for the purpose of preventing future murder and to protect the public. If the lifer feels he is being punished for being locked up for life. That is his problem. because there are plenty of free people that are paralised from the neck down that are in prision in there body. And all the other sufferings in the world.

It’s also possible that a person in prison for life can become redeemed and can help in the redemption of others. As we aren’t omniscient, we don’t know.

Bud God does.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

What are those “some, albeit narrow, circumstances?”

Per the Catechism section that you put so much stock in:

CCC2267 "Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. " {emphasis added}

The facts of the murder and the particular extenuating circumstances surrounding the crime would be major factors in the court’s determining that the death penalty is appropriate. Again, even a horrible crime might have some mitigating circumstances that could weigh against execution, but there would be no conflict with Church teaching if the criminal were condemned.

 

[Suudy]

Thank you for the link. I do agree fully with the CCC that the death penalty should never be used except in cases where it is the only way the public can be protected. Mr. Keating is, as far as I know, not any sort of expert on Catholicism. About the only thing I know about him is that he started CAF, a remarkably conservative (if not reactionary) website.

Please re-read what I wrote. I was referring to Fr Dunnigan, not Mr Keating. My quote:
This would certainly seem to be your position. Interestingly enough, there was some analysis, done by an expert, on this very point. Karl outlines some key points from that article in his e-letter. You may have to register to gain access to the actual article from Fr. Dunnigan, but here’s a link:

I also do not believe that human beings have the right to kill other human beings - unless that is the only way the public can be protected. This includes times of war and self-defense.

This has been Ender’s entire point. The traditional teaching of the Church is that capital punishment is more than just about protecting the innocent. Fr Dunnigan’s article makes this point more clearly, and from an expert’s opinion.ting abortion.

I hope you noticed that nobody in the conversation you referred to called anyone a “bad Catholic.” I’m sure you did (I’m just putting this in so that anyone who has not read that exchange will know). Actually I believe the entire exchange was conducted in a charitable manner and I appreciate that. Many subthreads are not.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I never said anything about anyone being called a “bad Catholic”. It was merely a reminder that we can disagree substantially on this issue. In fact, you should find in that quote strength. For it says one can be on opposite sides of this issue and still be a good Catholic. So, those that oppose you are not saying you are a bad Catholic, and neither are they.

But I question why the Church would allow the CCC to contain information that is not Church teaching.

That is the Cardinal Dulles, Fr Dunnigan, and Mr Keating’s point. Why is this the only place in the CCC where we see something that runs contrary to traditional Catholic teaching? If it is contrary, then the only explanation is that it is one of “prudential judgment”, not an infallible teaching. Read Fr Dunnigans article and it will become more clear.

And I question why anyone would refuse to accept the following (as it comes from the USCCB, which I believe is part of the Magisterium):

The USCCB is not part of the Magesterium. Perhaps that is why you think it binding?%between%

There is a lot of debate about ABC. Is it acceptable for me to say that I will use ABC and can remain a good Catholic? I get the impression that I should rip the page about capital punishment out of the CCC as there is debate on it and it may not be Church teaching. If that is true, then every other item in the CCC is subject to the same criticism. Again, I’m not trying to be uncharitable, but the smacks of moral relativism.

There is debate over capital punishment only because 2267, taken alone, seems to contradict traditional Church teaching. This has never been the case for ABC, abortion, or other issues. Ender’s point about older catechisms being very different on the issue of capital punishment means either 1) the Church teaching has changed or 2) the new teaching is not infallible. These categories do not apply to ABC or other issues of faith and morals.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Per the Catechism section that you put so much stock in:

I apologize for putting so much stock in the Catechism. That nihil obstat and imprimatur tend to make me feel that what is written just might be Church teaching and Truth. I guess I shouldn’t believe that the Church would publish a catechism that agrees with her teachings. My bad.

CCC2267 "Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. " {emphasis added}

The facts of the murder and the particular extenuating circumstances surrounding the crime would be major factors in the court’s determining that the death penalty is appropriate. Again, even a horrible crime might have some mitigating circumstances that could weigh against execution, but there would be no conflict with Church teaching if the criminal were condemned.

This is your quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Olszewski
“Agree wholly. It seems that the sentiment among most Catholics is towards abolishing use of the death penalty, which IMO is a good thing, but there are some, albeit narrow, circumstances where it is the only punishment that makes any sense.”

[bolding added]

I have no argument with what you are stating in your quote. And now you’ve agreed that your “some, albeit narrow, circumstances where it is the only punishment that makes any sense” refers to public safety. But now you’ve added something. Are you saying the death penalty is appropriate when the public can be protected? If so, why? I’m just trying to be sure I understand your position completely.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Please re-read what I wrote. I was referring to Fr Dunnigan, not Mr Keating. My quote:
This would certainly seem to be your position. Interestingly enough, there was some analysis, done by an expert, on this very point. Karl outlines some key points from that article in his e-letter. You may have to register to gain access to the actual article from Fr. Dunnigan, but here’s a link:

My apologies. My post did not sufficiently state my position.

This has been Ender’s entire point. The traditional teaching of the Church is that capital punishment is more than just about protecting the innocent. Fr Dunnigan’s article makes this point more clearly, and from an expert’s opinion.ting abortion.

I am not allowed to discuss other forum members and/or their posts. And I will not. I’m sorry but I can’t. I can discuss what you think but I cannot discuss what you think about any other forum member’s posts.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I never said anything about anyone being called a “bad Catholic”. It was merely a reminder that we can disagree substantially on this issue. In fact, you should find in that quote strength. For it says one can be on opposite sides of this issue and still be a good Catholic. So, those that oppose you are not saying you are a bad Catholic, and neither are they.

Please re-read what I wrote. I was saying that nobody has called me a bad Catholic! I was saying that the exchange was charitable! Please don’t smack me across the face when I’m trying to be nice.

That is the Cardinal Dulles, Fr Dunnigan, and Mr Keating’s point. Why is this the only place in the CCC where we see something that runs contrary to traditional Catholic teaching? If it is contrary, then the only explanation is that it is one of “prudential judgment”, not an infallible teaching. Read Fr Dunnigans article and it will become more clear.

This is where one problem lies. I don’t see it as being contrary to traditional Catholic teaching. To me it is clear that we are to turn the other cheek, forgive, not throw the first stone…

The USCCB is not part of the Magesterium. Perhaps that is why you think it binding?%between%

Welll, yeah!!!

I actually called the USCCB to find out if it is part of the Magisterium. I spoke to two women; one who transferred me, and the other, who told me to check the website. She didn’t know. She had also never heard of CAF. And I was looking at the USCCB website while I was on the phone with her (that’s how I obtained the phone number). I was unable to determine if the USCCB is part of the Magisterium, although I tried. If it isn’t, then there are a lot of Catholics who are being misled. I even conceded a major point on a thread because I was shown teaching from the USCCB. People I know who have studied Church teaching for a dozen years believe the USCCB is part of the Magisterium.

Of course I find their teachings to be binding! Just like every other Catholic who is doing her best to do what’s right and to follow Jesus, I try to learn. It is common knowledge that the USCCB is part of the Magisterium.

If you can, please tell me what the Magisterium is - not your opinion (please) but with citations.

There is debate over capital punishment only because 2267, taken alone, seems to contradict traditional Church teaching. This has never been the case for ABC, abortion, or other issues. Ender’s point about older catechisms being very different on the issue of capital punishment means either 1) the Church teaching has changed or 2) the new teaching is not infallible. These categories do not apply to ABC or other issues of faith and morals.

As I stated before, I cannot discuss other members or what they have written. I’m very sorry. I can respond to points that you make (I hope; technically I’m in violation for even responding to a post). I’m not trying to be difficult. I have no choice in this matter.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I apologize for putting so much stock in the Catechism. That nihil obstat and imprimatur tend to make me feel that what is written just might be Church teaching and Truth. I guess I shouldn’t believe that the Church would publish a catechism that agrees with her teachings. My bad.

Nihil obstat and an Imprimatur aren’t certifications of truth or accuracy. They are “negative” endorsements saying only that the published works contain nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Your smarmy last sentence is insulting to the Church, and I see no good reason to continue this dialog. I was simply providing you with the definitions of those terms - and so I have.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Nihil obstat and an Imprimatur aren’t certifications of truth or accuracy. They are “negative” endorsements saying only that the published works contain nothing contrary to Catholic doctrine.

Your smarmy last sentence is insulting to the Church, and I see no good reason to continue this dialog. I was simply providing you with the definitions of those terms - and so I have.

I know what the terms mean (and they are more complicated than what you have stated); that’s why I wrote: "That nihil obstat and imprimatur tend to make me feel that what is written just might be Church teaching and Truth.

“I’m just trying to be sure I understand your position completely.” is smarmy? Wow.

Telling me that I “put so much stock in” is rather snarky, IMHO. At least that is the way I read it and that is why I responded as I did.

If you’re referring to “my bad,” well I think it’s extremely insulting to imply that the Church can’t even provide a catechism with her own teaching in it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The USCCB is not part of the Magesterium. Perhaps that is why you think it binding?

From what I have read and have been told the Magisterium is composed of the bishops, led by the Holy See and under his authority. Wouldn’t this include the USCCB as it is composed of American bishops?

 

[Ender]

From what I have read and have been told the Magisterium is composed of the bishops, led by the Holy See and under his authority. Wouldn’t this include the USCCB as it is composed of American bishops?

No. Bishops are part of the Magisterium; the USCCB is not.

• We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function. (The Ratzinger Report, 59-61)* (Bishop Vasa)
• “No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission: its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.”* (Cardinal Ratzinger)

fratres.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/bishop-vasa-on-the-usccb-sacred-duties-episcopal-ministry/

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

No. Bishops are part of the Magisterium; the USCCB is not.

• We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function. (The Ratzinger Report, 59-61)* (Bishop Vasa)
• “No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission: its documents have no weight of their own* save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” (Cardinal Ratzinger)

fratres.wordpress.com/2010/09/21/bishop-vasa-on-the-usccb-sacred-duties-episcopal-ministry/

Ender

Thank you!! This is what I need. Ender, I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m just an average revert who is told different things by different people and doesn’t know how to tell which is right and which is wrong. This has happened my whole life and it’s one reason I left the Church. It’s very frustrating to not know.

But I really don’t understand. Are you saying that the bishops themselves are part of the Magisterium, but not a group of bishops that form an organization such as the USCCB?

What is an "episcopal conference?

Do priests base their decisions on what is stated by the USCCB?

I’ve been trying to find this information for quite some time now and I haven’t been successful.

Is the USCCB an organization that teaches discipline that is applicable only in the USA (I have a feeling this is true)?

How do bishops get together to form the Magisterium? There are a lot of Catholics in the world and a lot of bishops. I don’t know how this works.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give!!

 

[Ender]

But I really don’t understand. Are you saying that the bishops themselves are part of the Magisterium, but not a group of bishops that form an organization such as the USCCB?

The Magisterium is made up of active bishops in union with the pope. An episcopal conference is a group of bishops, but “groups of bishops” have no formal teaching mission. As Cardinal Ratzinger said, their “documents have no weight of their own.”

Do priests base their decisions on what is stated by the USCCB?

Probably, but the point is that they have no obligation to do so unless what the USCCB has said is expressly endorsed by their bishop.

Is the USCCB an organization that teaches discipline that is applicable only in the USA (I have a feeling this is true)?

What it teaches is not applicable anywhere except in those dioceses where the local bishop has accepted it. Otherwise its documents are no more binding here than in Mongolia. This is why I don’t reference the USCCB except for explanations of facts; I certainly don’t look to them for moral guidance.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

The Magisterium is made up of active bishops in union with the pope. An episcopal conference is a group of bishops, but “groups of bishops” have no formal teaching mission. As Cardinal Ratzinger said, their “documents have no weight of their own.”

Probably, but the point is that they have no obligation to do so unless what the USCCB has said is expressly endorsed by their bishop.

What it teaches is not applicable anywhere except in those dioceses where the local bishop has accepted it. Otherwise its documents are no more binding here than in Mongolia. This is why I don’t reference the USCCB except for explanations of facts; I certainly don’t look to them for moral guidance.

Ender

I wonder why the group even exists, especially when its existence and its “teachings” cause so much confusion among the faithful.

I want to publicly apologize to you. You have been charitable to me. I do have a problem with processing language (due to brain damage). I may not have understood some of what you have said. Sometimes it takes months for the truth to sink into my addled brain. That’s not an excuse for my distrust of you; it’s merely a reason. It seems to be getting worse and I’m concerned that in the near future I won’t be able to understand even the most basic concepts.

I’ll keep the references you provided so that I can use them when I’m shown USCCB quotes. Thank you.

I will try to see your side with as open a mind as I can manage. Please bear with me. It’s not usually obvious to me when I don’t understand. I honestly believe I do. And then months later I realize I was completely wrong. I thought there might be a problem when you said that it seemed like words had lost their meaning for me. You may have been completely correct.

EDIT: Are you aware that the USCCB states that it is appropriate for rape victims to use the morning-after pill? This is what I fought so hard against in the thread I mentioned. It just didn’t seem correct. But when I was shown a quote from the USCCB I conceded. Now I realize I shouldn’t have. It’s too late to fix, but in the future I will be more careful. My gut feeling was that it was wrong, even if a positive pregnancy test would mean that the morning-after pill could not be used. To me, even if the pregnancy has not technically occurred, it will occur unless humans meddle, and to use the morning-after pill seems to be saying that any child who is conceived via rape is not worthy of life. And I know that’s not true!!!

 

[Ender]

I want to publicly apologize to you. You have been charitable to me.

Thank you.

I will try to see your side with as open a mind as I can manage.

If you come away with anything from this discussion I would hope it would be the recognition that this subject is anything but simple and all that the Church teaches is not contained in 2267.

Are you aware that the USCCB states that it is appropriate for rape victims to use the morning-after pill?

No, I know nothing at all about the USCCB position on the morning-after pill - but I am beyond being surprised at anything they might do. I suspect that they are playing word games with the definition of pregnancy. A woman is not immediately pregnant after conception since pregnancy is defined as the implantation of the embryo in the wall of the uterus, so there is a period of (I think) a few days where conception has occurred but the woman is not “pregnant”.

If abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy then the “morning after” pill would not technically be an abortifacient since - technically - pregnancy has not yet occurred. The embryo is nonetheless destroyed and whether that happens before or after implantation is morally irrelevant.

Ender

 

[Suudy]

EDIT: Are you aware that the USCCB states that it is appropriate for rape victims to use the morning-after pill? This is what I fought so hard against in the thread I mentioned. It just didn’t seem correct. But when I was shown a quote from the USCCB I conceded.

I remember a similar discussion a few years ago. As I understood it, the USCCB said the only approved “morning after pill” was one that prevented conception, but that anything that intended to terminate a pregnancy (implanted or not) is prohibited. Now, I’ve never seen anything from the USCCB other than condemnation. After reading your post, I went to the USCCB website looking for what you mentioned, and I can’t find it. In fact, the website is well stocked with articles and links against it.

usccb.org/prolife/issues/contraception/morningafterpill.shtml

Edit: I did find this article:

usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.shtml

From it:
A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm. If conception has occurred, however, a Catholic hospital will not dispense drugs to interfere with implantation of a newly conceived human embryo.
Note that any abortifacient drug is expressly prohibited.

 

[shaky]

Thank you.
If you come away with anything from this discussion I would hope it would be the recognition that this subject is anything but simple and all that the Church teaches is not contained in 2267.
No, I know nothing at all about the USCCB position on the morning-after pill - but I am beyond being surprised at anything they might do. I suspect that they are playing word games with the definition of pregnancy. A woman is not immediately pregnant after conception since pregnancy is defined as the implantation of the embryo in the wall of the uterus, so there is a period of (I think) a few days where conception has occurred but the woman is not “pregnant”.

If abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy then the “morning after” pill would not technically be an abortifacient since - technically - pregnancy has not yet occurred. The embryo is nonetheless destroyed and whether that happens before or after implantation is morally irrelevant.

Ender

So what you are saying is that a rape victim is allowed to use the morning after pill as a contraception!!
But if they are not a rape victim and just had sex with a stranger willingly who they just met on a night out. They can’t use the morning after pill as a contraception.

 

[Ender]

So what you are saying is that a rape victim is allowed to use the morning after pill as a contraception!!
But if they are not a rape victim and just had sex with a stranger willingly who they just met on a night out. They can’t use the morning after pill as a contraception.

I have not seen the USCCB statement and do not know the medical facts of the medication involved. If the pill prevents conception then it should be acceptable to use after a rape; if it prevents implantation it should not. My comment was speculation based on a very low opinion of pretty much everything that proceeds from the USCCB.

Whatever … this thread is supposed to be about the death penalty.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

Thank you.
If you come away with anything from this discussion I would hope it would be the recognition that this subject is anything but simple and all that the Church teaches is not contained in 2267.
No, I know nothing at all about the USCCB position on the morning-after pill - but I am beyond being surprised at anything they might do. I suspect that they are playing word games with the definition of pregnancy. A woman is not immediately pregnant after conception since pregnancy is defined as the implantation of the embryo in the wall of the uterus, so there is a period of (I think) a few days where conception has occurred but the woman is not “pregnant”.

If abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy then the “morning after” pill would not technically be an abortifacient since - technically - pregnancy has not yet occurred. The embryo is nonetheless destroyed and whether that happens before or after implantation is morally irrelevant.

Ender

That’s not the logic the USCCB uses. They do follow Church teaching in this respect. Pregnancy starts at conception, not implantation. A pregnancy test is required, but I’m not up to date on how good pregnancy tests are. If conception has occured no termination of the pregnancy is allowed. I’m also not sure of the science involved - as to how long it takes for the spermatozoan to penetrate the ovum after ejaculation has taken place. I wouldn’t think it would be very long. I had some serious problems with accepting what the USCCB is promoting and I left the thread feeling very confused and somewhat depressed. In other words, it bugged me. It still does.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have not seen the USCCB statement and do not know the medical facts of the medication involved. If the pill prevents conception then it should be acceptable to use after a rape; if it prevents implantation it should not. My comment was speculation based on a very low opinion of pretty much everything that proceeds from the USCCB.

Whatever … this thread is supposed to be about the death penalty.

Ender

I agree with both your points and I apologize for leading the thread off-topic.

 

[LittleSoldier]

So what you are saying is that a rape victim is allowed to use the morning after pill as a contraception!!
But if they are not a rape victim and just had sex with a stranger willingly who they just met on a night out. They can’t use the morning after pill as a contraception.

No - the USCCB is saying a rape victim is allowed to use the morning after pill as contraception. They also state that no abortifacient can be used.

I’m sorry for leading this thread off-topic.

Please - let’s return to the original topic - the death penalty.