Death penalty question

[Ender]

You can say “2000 years of teaching” but you haven’t proved it at all.

Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. Ye see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed. (Pope Clement, 98 AD)

*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? *(Pope Innocent I, 410 AD)

*Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood … *(Pope Innocent III, 1210 AD)

*Notwithstanding we see that Princes and Governors put thieves and other malefactors to death, who nevertheless are men, and it is not holden that they do evil herein, but well. *(Catechism of St. Bellarmine, approved by Clement XIII, 1598)

*It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime… *(Catechism of Pius X, 1905)
Is this sufficient to prove the point?

The criminal deserves death and deserves mercy at the hand of humans. That is what the Catechism teaches.

You are right that the criminal deserves death, but the church has been very clear that mercy is not something that should be universally granted. There are times when its use is inappropriate. So, if mercy should not be used in a particular case, and the criminal deserves death…what is the argument against giving him what he admittedly deserves?

“The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.” This Jewish teaching on blood is valid to this day. That is all it is saying

Your interpretation essentially says that historical facts cannot change. Isn’t this obvious? Why would the catechism include such an obviously superfluous statement?

Ender

 

[Ender]

First, Doctors of the Church are just suggested reading. They are not part of Church teaching.

They and the Fathers are very much part of Church teaching. Look where your position on this issue has taken you that you discard the teaching of many of the greatest theologians in the church.*Who dare imagine the sinful words these blind fools would have for the most Brilliant Theologian [Saint Thomas Aquinas] ever: whose systematic method of reasoning [Scholasticism] and sacred writings have been lauded by Holy Mother Church and every Pope for the last 800 years. *(Pius IX, 1893)

Likewise, you need to show that Innocent 1 was speaking of death penalty when they could have contained the criminal, and likewise that he was speaking as Pope

Here is a lengthier citation.In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
(Innocent I, Epist. 6, c. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, (20 Feb. 405), PL 20, 495)
Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

The teaching about the Old Testament is about blood being a sacred sign of life

Those, therefore, who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to His will, are punished with death. Ye see, brethren, that the greater the knowledge that has been vouchsafed to us, the greater also is the danger to which we are exposed. (Pope Clement, 98 AD)

**That is only a description of historical fact **

Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? (Pope Innocent I, 410 AD)

You’ll have to show that the practice is killing criminals when they could be imprisoned instead, and that this was not a papal statement.

Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood … (Pope Innocent III, 1210 AD)

Again, for protection

Notwithstanding we see that Princes and Governors put thieves and other malefactors to death, who nevertheless are men, and it is not holden that they do evil herein, but well. (Catechism of St. Bellarmine, approved by Clement XIII, 1598)

Protection

It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime… (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)

This was written by the Pope before he became Pope. But it is a death sentence to execute someone, but the primary purpose is for protection, and if it is not necessary for that, you can’t put the person to death. You still won’t address the very words of John Paul II

 

[thinkandmull]

They and the Fathers are very much part of Church teaching. Look where your position on this issue has taken you that you discard the teaching of many of the greatest theologians in the church.Who dare imagine the sinful words these blind fools would have for the most Brilliant Theologian [Saint Thomas Aquinas] ever: whose systematic method of reasoning [Scholasticism] and sacred writings have been lauded by Holy Mother Church and every Pope for the last 800 years. (Pius IX, 1893)
Here is a lengthier citation.In regard to this question we have nothing definitive from those who have gone before us. It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
(Innocent I, Epist. 6, c. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, (20 Feb. 405), PL 20, 495)
Ender

It does not say there that the Authority can go beyond protection. And general approvals of a theologian don’t raise them to Papal teaching because nothing is specified. We are free to disagree with Aquinas

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

I think the late Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote an excellent article setting out the Catholic Church’s views on the issue, in First Things. Maybe someone has a link?

Also I wish to note that the current Popes are not the first to oppose Capital Punishment.
Pope St Leo I the Great and Pope Nicholas I (i think, could be another Pope Nicholas) both believed capital punishment should not be used under any circumstance. However, their opposition was based on their prudential judgment that it should not be used in the times they lived, not because it was immoral in principal.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You accept the execution of prisoners for the purpose of protection. I accept the execution of prisoners for the purpose of retribution. That point aside, the act in both cases is exactly the same: it is a direct intentional killing.

And yet you are unable to quote clear and consistent Catholic Doctrine in recent times to support such an important “doctrine” .
Certainly not the CCC.
I have demonstrated to you that Aquinas scholars find him inconsistent and in two minds on this point.

An intelligent person would then suspect … hey, maybe it isn’t set doctrine at all but an unsettled, scholarly debated point. Which it is of course.
In fact the debate has turned in the last century and you are paddling against the tide.

Doctrine cannot evolve to the point of being reversed.

Great tautology.
The point of course is whether your opinion is set Catholic Doctrine.

Ender I asked if you have actually been formally trained in theology in general and Aquinas in particular. I note you have not responded?

The reason I ask is because I have grown to realise that people who are auto-didacts (self taught from books Catechisms etc) do not have a good 3D grasp of the dialogic nature and origin of Church Teachings.

Such persons who have never been apprenticed under a live theology teacher do not realise many details are not set in stone but are in fact a matter of ongoing debate.

Such persons think that the first coherent position they find, even if it be mainstream, is the only one and therefore the “true” one.

Life is not like that, nor is the Church despite Trent.
Much is still under debate.

Noone here denies that State Executions can be justified in some circumstances.
However the underpinning philosophy that justifies the principles involved has always been a matter of debate.

You have a valid position that was once mainstream and largely consistent.
However why do other legitimate explanatory Catholic positions make you so insecure in your own position that you become so obsessed and compulsed to hold that your’s is the only true view…that the question is a set dogma that cannot change.

This is madness.
You have a valid view re justifying principles of State Executions that was once mainstream. I accept that.

But why do you vainly try to deny the simple fact that their has always been scholarly debate on these principles and that their are other legitimate explanations also?
There is in fact a debate that has always been going on.

Why do you feel the need to pretend there isn’t and condemn these other scholarly views.

Neither system is totally coherent, even Aquinas is inconsistent if you sift through his Corpus.

For this reason I suspect you are largely an auto-didact - because you are informed by dead-books rather than having trained in a living tertiary level tradition you think it is cut and dried.

This is a distorted view of scholarly Catholicism common amongst the laity…and promoted by non-scholarly priests to boot.

 

[Ender]

I think the late Cardinal Avery Dulles wrote an excellent article setting out the Catholic Church’s views on the issue, in First Things. Maybe someone has a link?

This is the article, although it is not from First Things. My link to the article on their site no longer works.
catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/social-justice/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment.html

Also I wish to note that the current Popes are not the first to oppose Capital Punishment. Pope St Leo I the Great and Pope Nicholas I (i think, could be another Pope Nicholas) both believed capital punishment should not be used under any circumstance. However, their opposition was based on their prudential judgment that it should not be used in the times they lived, not because it was immoral in principal.

If you have citations from either or both of them I would appreciate seeing them. I have nothing at all from Leo and only a fragment from Nicholas I in a letter to the Bulgarians where he urged the neophytes to promote life both of body and soul, and to *“rescue from death not only the innocent, but also the guilty.” *My understanding, however, is the same as yours; his opposition was prudential, and in that regard is the same as the current opposition.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Ender I asked if you have actually been formally trained in theology in general and Aquinas in particular. I note you have not responded?

The reason I ask is because I have grown to realise that people who are auto-didacts (self taught from books Catechisms etc) do not have a good 3D grasp of the dialogic nature and origin of Church Teachings.

Such persons who have never been apprenticed under a live theology teacher do not realise many details are not set in stone but are in fact a matter of ongoing debate.

Such persons think that the first coherent position they find, even if it be mainstream, is the only one and therefore the “true” one.

Life is not like that, nor is the Church despite Trent.
Much is still under debate.

Noone here denies that State Executions can be justified in some circumstances.
However the underpinning philosophy that justifies the principles involved has always been a matter of debate.

You have a valid position that was once mainstream and largely consistent.
However why do other legitimate explanatory Catholic positions make you so insecure in your own position that you become so obsessed and compulsed to hold that your’s is the only true view…that the question is a set dogma that cannot change.

This is madness.
You have a valid view re justifying principles of State Executions that was once mainstream. I accept that.

But why do you vainly try to deny the simple fact that their has always been scholarly debate on these principles and that their are other legitimate explanations also?
There is in fact a debate that has always been going on.

Why do you feel the need to pretend there isn’t and condemn these other scholarly views.

Neither system is totally coherent, even Aquinas is inconsistent if you sift through his Corpus.

For this reason I suspect you are largely an auto-didact - because you are informed by dead-books rather than having trained in a living tertiary level tradition you think it is cut and dried.

This is a distorted view of scholarly Catholicism common amongst the laity…and promoted by non-scholarly priests to boot.

Highly important aspect. Excellent post, Blue Horizon. I’m just now reading the biography of a relation of mine, William Ullathorne the first Vicar General in Australia (and direct descendent of St Thomas More). name dropper His calling dated from an early age and his reading of Catholic material was wide (for that time in the 1800’s). However, plagued by natural humility he regretted and lamented that he had acquired “knowledge without due scholarship” as a true hinderance to his Catholic formation… hence a great appreciation for his later Benedictine formation.

 

[Ender]

And yet you are unable to quote clear and consistent Catholic Doctrine in recent times to support such an important “doctrine”.

The church teaches that morality does not change with time or place, so why does it matter whether I cite past or present authorities?

Certainly not the CCC.

The 1997 version is not consistent with what was written all the way back in…1992. Should we ignore everything taught before 1995?

I have demonstrated to you that Aquinas scholars find him inconsistent and in two minds on this point.

You have found a site that makes that argument; that doesn’t make the argument valid, and I’m going with the position that Aquinas wasn’t inconsistent about anything.

An intelligent person would then suspect … hey, maybe it isn’t set doctrine at all but an unsettled, scholarly debated point. Which it is of course.

If something has been taught by the church unchanged for 1900 years and isn’t considered settled doctrine then what doctrines can be considered settled?

The point of course is whether your opinion is set Catholic Doctrine.

I don’t offer my opinions; I offer citations from those who would be expected to know. Such as these:*“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” *(Cardinal Dulles)

*A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started. *(Cardinal Newman)

Ender I asked if you have actually been formally trained in theology in general and Aquinas in particular. I note you have not responded?

My training is not relevant. Either my arguments are valid or they aren’t, and they aren’t made stronger because I have formal training or weaker because I haven’t. Your dispute is with my arguments, not with me personally.

No one here denies that State Executions can be justified in some circumstances. However the underpinning philosophy that justifies the principles involved has always been a matter of debate.

You assert this, now back it up with a citation that supports it. Since the church has held the assertion that states do not have a right to employ capital punishment to be a heresy, I’m thinking this is pretty strong evidence the matter was settled and not up for debate.

You have a valid position that was once mainstream and largely consistent.

Mainstream? You mean as in…church doctrine?

However why do other legitimate explanatory Catholic positions…

I haven’t encountered any explanation that is logically consistent or supported by church sources.

I suspect you are largely an auto-didact - because you are informed by dead-books rather than having trained in a living tertiary level tradition you think it is cut and dried.

Then it should be all the easier for you to demolish my arguments. The fact that you have provided nothing other than your own opinions (the one non-Catholic source excepted) demonstrates the weakness of your position. After all, if you can’t even rebut someone completely untrained in the area of living tertiary level traditions the most likely reason is that error is hard to defend.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

My training is not relevant. Either my arguments are valid or they aren’t, and they aren’t made stronger because I have formal training or weaker because I haven’t.

That belief more than anything demonstrates your lack of scholarship and perhaps indicates a more Protestant approach to theology.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have noticed you using the argument that execution is not a direct intentional killing. You I assume are using the double effect argument as in an ectopic pregnancy where the tube is removed with the unintentional result of death to the child.

I am at a loss to see how you can execute someone and have a double effect. The intention is to kill there is not double effect involved. It isn’t like the state is trying to cure a disease and the unintended result is the death of the person. The most likely thing you can say that the state is protecting the people with the unintended effect of killing the offender. It is dishonest in my opinion to say that the death was unintended. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you and I look forward to your clarification.

Yes, I believe even in traditional views the State can be viewed as trying to address a disease - the “fault” of the culprit. Alternatively, as the Stanford article I quoted below, it is “justice” that is intended.

Thirdly, if what you say is correct (I am not saying my approach re the State is correct but it does seem to be where the CCC is going and I am exploring the viability of this approach) then it is difficult to see why the PODE wrt execution works in private cases and not public ones.

In scholastic moral philosophy there is a real distinction between direct intention and deliberate acts.

I can “deliberately choose” a proportionate defensive act (a lethal blow) that I am prudentially sure will kill my attacker … even though I do not in my heart “directly intend” his death. I intend my safety.

I find this distinction, existentially, very difficult to comprehend myself - but from my Scholastic training I know that it is standard moral theology fare.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Highly important aspect. Excellent post, Blue Horizon. I’m just now reading the biography of a relation of mine, William Ullathorne the first Vicar General in Australia (and direct descendent of St Thomas More). name dropper His calling dated from an early age and his reading of Catholic material was wide (for that time in the 1800’s). However, plagued by natural humility he regretted and lamented that he had acquired “knowledge without due scholarship” as a true hinderance to his Catholic formation… hence a great appreciation for his later Benedictine formation.

Yes the Benedictines are very broadminded and scholarly!
My own “apprenticeship” was with the Dominicans and I majored in Aquinas.
I note that this apologetic website is called “Catholic Answers” … yet the majority of repeat posters seem to believe it is “Catholic Answer.”

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Blue Horizon View Post
And yet you are unable to quote clear and consistent Catholic Doctrine in recent times to support such an important “doctrine”.

Ender if you want people to respect you and take you seriously you need to return the favour. If you cannot find such a quote, to remain credible, you surely need to explain why you think it is you cannot find a recent quote for your very important allegedly clear teaching of the Church in line with your but partial view.

The 1997 CCC version is not consistent with what was written all the way back in…1992. Should we ignore everything taught before 1995?

Ender if I was a smart guy who felt strongly that Capital punishment can be solely justified by retrib justice alone … and a Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released under the reign of one of the greatest Popes of this millennium … and approved by the CDF headed by prob one of the greatest theological minds of this millennium (Card Ratz)
… and that Catechism only gave a pitiful indirect nod of 3-4 words to your “teaching” and then justified CP by respecting other principles as well (which is why you call it “inconsistent”) … then I would have to take stock…

I would be asking myself…maybe I havn’t fully understood the true principles behind the justification of State Executions.

But no, you question the CCC.
Do you question the legitimacy of the Papacy these last three times as well?
And if CCC’s can be mistaken and limited… why cannot that also be the case with older Catechisms you laud?

But you don’t seem to ask any intelligently humble and self-critical questions
Why not?

You have found a site that makes that argument; that doesn’t make the argument valid…

Ender you are taking a long time to get it…I am simply observing that what we are debating has always been debated by scholars. You think your position is the one true teaching simply because you refuse to accept there is a debate and believe your position is the only valid position.
Not looking doesn’t make reality disappear…
And then you are surprised when the CCC doesn’t clearly back you on your very important teaching.
Wake-up and think your way out of the lonely, intellectual dead-end you have got yourself into.
Join the dots, there is greater intelligibility and coherence of explanation for your difficulties (eg the inconsistency of the CCC as you put it) of recent times in the observations that I and others are offering you.

If something has been taught by the church unchanged for 1900 years and isn’t considered settled doctrine then what doctrines can be considered settled?

Those dogmatically defined (there aren’t a lot) or truths universally held (ie not traditionally debated by authorities). Surprisingly Christ’s Divinity was debated for 350 yrs or so - why would you expect something less significant (like State Executions) to be done and dusted so quickly.
Fact is you have only been tracking one-side of the historical debate on this topic…then you are surprised when the other side becomes mainstream and yours is not well found in the CC or teaching of recent Popes.

Fact is many important things are still open for debate. eg most Western laity believe Mary did not die. Yet mainstream teaching is that she did. But both positions are acceptable because its debated and has not been dogmaticly settled yet.

I don’t offer my opinions; I offer citations from those who would be expected to know.

You merely cherry pick your side of the debate. Not exactly an honest way of making your case .
For example,
I prev stated “To call it “Capital Punishment” suggests this ultimate form of retributive justice can be justified by retrib justice principles alone…[yet] it cannot…”

You responded, “You are mistaken” and then partially quoted Aquinas:
“Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”

Yet you omitted Aquinas’s previous sentence which supports my position:
“The slaying of an evil-doer is lawful inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community.” (ie its not simply about retrib justice as you keep opining).

This is how you maintain the illusion that retrib justice alone can justify State Executions.
You bury your head in the sand to the other principles the Church and even Aquinas always invokes as well.
This a typical weakness of an auto-didact only education.

My training is not relevant. Either my arguments are valid or they aren’t, and they aren’t made stronger because I have formal training or weaker because I haven’t. Your dispute is with my arguments, not with me personally.

Oh dear…you must be a young fellah to be so lacking the self-knowledge that only comes from experience.

No one here denies that State Executions can be justified in some circumstances. However the underpinning philosophy that justifies the principles involved has always been a matter of debate.

Since the church has held the assertion that states do not have a right to employ capital punishment to be a heresy…

Ender please re-read what I said. Then re-read your response.
If you cannot see the absurdity of your response then I can only presume somebody hasn’t been taking their meds and I don’t think its me .
Please do us the courtesy of actually reading and reflecting rather than compulsively objecting even when I support you on some points!!!

 

[Ender]

Yes, I believe even in traditional views the State can be viewed as trying to address a disease - the “fault” of the culprit. Alternatively, as the Stanford article I quoted below, it is “justice” that is intended.

Justice is surely the objective, and is why the punishment must fit the crime. (Retributive) justice is nothing more than treating a person in accordance with his own actions: punishment for sinful acts, reward for beneficial ones.

it is difficult to see why the PODE wrt execution works in private cases and not public ones.

What is PODE? Re executions, they are forbidden to the individual while they are the right of the State. There is a fundamental distinction between what the State is allowed and what is allowed to the individual. The individual is required to forgive; the State is required to punish.

Ender

 

[Rau]

,What is PODE? …

Principle of Double Effect?

 

[Ender]

If you cannot find such a quote, to remain credible, you surely need to explain why you think it is you cannot find a recent quote for your very important allegedly clear teaching of the Church in line with your but partial view.

Why does the citation need to be recent if the doctrines being discussed have been addressed by the church for at least 1900 years? What in your mind constitutes “recent”? Opposition to capital punishment is itself recent, going back less than 50 years.

If the doctrines have not changed then a citation from any era is valid. If they have changed then you need to defend the position that the repudiation of a doctrine represents a valid form of its development.

Ender if I was a smart guy who felt strongly that Capital punishment can be solely justified by retrib justice alone … and a Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church released under the reign of one of the greatest Popes of this millennium … and approved by the CDF headed by prob one of the greatest theological minds of this millennium (Card Ratz) … and that Catechism only gave a pitiful indirect nod of 3-4 words to your “teaching” and then justified CP by respecting other principles as well (which is why you call it “inconsistent”) … then I would have to take stock…

If your interpretation is true and 2267 represents a new doctrine then it also represents not the development but the repudiation of past doctrine, a doctrine that had been developed and defended by the church since her inception. That is no small matter. On the other hand, if my understanding is correct (that 2267 is prudential) then there is no conflict at all between past and present. If I was alone in reaching this position I would be concerned, but I’m not.*While the Church has not denied its traditional position that the state has the right to employ capital punishment, many Catholic bishops, together with Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, have spoken against the exercise of that right by the state. *(Indiana Catholic Conference, 1998)

But no, you question the CCC.

What I question is your understanding of what the catechism is saying.

I am simply observing that what we are debating has always been debated by scholars.

I can’t account for what scholars debate, but I have challenged you to provide a citation showing that this debate has existed within the church. I’m still waiting… You’ve asserted all kinds of things, but you back them up with nothing at all beyond your opinion.

You merely cherry pick your side of the debate. Not exactly an honest way of making your case. For example,
I prev stated “To call it “Capital Punishment” suggests this ultimate form of retributive justice can be justified by retrib justice principles alone…[yet] it cannot…”

You responded, “You are mistaken” and then partially quoted Aquinas:
“Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.”

Yet you omitted Aquinas’s previous sentence which supports my position:
“The slaying of an evil-doer is lawful inasmuch as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community.” (ie its not simply about retrib justice as you keep opining).

What I was responding to was the part of the comment you yourself had put in bold letters: “**Directly intended killing **of any form is always wrong.” The citation I provided goes to that point specifically. The part you insult me for not providing was not included because it was not relevant to that issue.

It is ironic that you charge me with cherry picking for not providing a citation that was irrelevant to the point I was making even as you removed from your statement the very assertion I was addressing (Post #181).

Ender:

Your dispute is with my arguments, not with me personally.
Blue Horizon:

Oh dear…you must be a young fellah to be so lacking the self-knowledge that only comes from experience.

Words fail me.

If you cannot see the absurdity of your response then I can only presume somebody hasn’t been taking their meds and I don’t think its me.

Is this how someone “trained in a living tertiary level tradition” is taught to debate?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Principle of Double Effect?

Ah, yes. Now I can address the question.
Blue Horizon:

it is difficult to see why the PODE wrt execution works in private cases and not public ones.

With respect to individuals, this principle is necessary to justify actions that have a harmful effect which the individual would be forbidden to intentionally cause. There are four criteria that must be satisfied for an act to be allowed under this principle:

1. The action to be performed must be morally good in itself or at least morally indifferent or neutral.
2. The good effect must not come about as a result of the evil effect, but must come directly from the action itself.
3. The good must be willed, and the evil merely allowed or tolerated.
4. The good effect must be at least equivalent in importance to the evil effect.

It is easy to satisfy these criteria for killing in self defense. The only caution would be under (3). This is what prevents the defender from intending to kill his attacker. He may kill someone, but he may not will his death.

Capital punishment does not satisfy these criteria and therefore cannot be justified under this principle. If someone who opposes it has admitted that an execution is morally good or morally indifferent (criterion 1) I am unaware of it. Further, the good of protection comes directly from the “evil effect” (the death of the prisoner) and not from the act of the execution itself (criterion 2). Finally, it is not reasonable to assert that the intent of an execution is not the death of the prisoner, which is forbidden by criterion 3.

It seems to me that an execution cannot be justified by appeal to the Principle of Double Effect because it fails three of the four criteria that would allow it.

The State has no need to appeal to this principle because, unlike the individual, the State has the moral right to intentionally take a life (under three different conditions).

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

Ender, you still stand without a case. You haven’t shown where the Church has ever taught that someone could be put to death who is not an immediate threat to other people. The Catechism only has as much authority as the documents it cites, so even though your interpretation is not consistent with it, you are free to disagree with that book. But an encyclical has more weight. John Paul taught that punishment"ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to** defend society**." **That is clearly doctrinal **

 

[Ender]

You haven’t shown where the Church has ever taught that someone could be put to death who is not an immediate threat to other people.

Prior to the 1997 catechism there is nothing in church teaching (that I have so far seen) that links capital punishment to protection. A constitutional principle of English law is that “Everything that is not forbidden is allowed.” If that principle applies to the church then it is your obligation to show where the church prohibited it rather than my obligation to show where the church permits it.

The Catechism only has as much authority as the documents it cites, so even though your interpretation is not consistent with it, you are free to disagree with that book.

There is no contradiction between the catechism and my interpretation of what it says. I have said it is a prudential judgment, which is the same position taken by Cardinal Dulles and arguably Cardinal Ratzinger. My understanding at least raises no problems with traditional teaching on the subject, unlike yours which repudiates it all.

But an encyclical has more weight. John Paul taught that punishment"ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to** defend society**." **That is clearly doctrinal **

It is not clear to quite a number of those one would expect to be able to make that distinction. I cited this before but it is still relevant.*While the Church has not denied its traditional position that the state has the right to employ capital punishment, many Catholic bishops, together with Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, have spoken against the **exercise **of that right by the state. *(Indiana Catholic Conference)
They clearly believe it to be prudential as well.

Ender

 

[thinkandmull]

constitutional English law does not apply to the Church of course.

Its gotten to the point where its like you are not even **reading **the words of John Paul II anymore. He says, again he says, that the death penalty can only be applied in cases of self-defense because of the dignity of the criminal. That is doctrinal. How often there are cases of self-defense, well there is some prudential judgment there…