What is being said here? That capital punishment, being an offense against “the dignity of the human person”, is intrinsically evil? That would indeed be a doctrinal statement, but that isn’t what is said. So what is the doctrine? That we shouldn’t use capital punishment when we don’t need to? If that is the case then surely you have to admit that the determination of when it is needed is prudential; it is not possible to doctrinally identify when something is needed.“if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor… [as this is] more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”
doctrinal Ender
So there you have an authoritative teaching from a thoroughly orthodox and modern bishop who says that capital punishment is not “intrinsically evil” and deserves “prayerful consideration”. Nowhere does he say, proclaim or teach that capital punishment must be abolished here in the USA or anywhere.p. 22, question 18.
Are there any “non-negotiable” issues for Catholics involved in politics?
There are several issues that are “not negotiable” for Catholics in political life, because they involve matters that are intrinsically evil.
…
The issues mentioned by Pope Benedict are all “non-negotiable” and are some of the most contemporary issues in the political arena. I should note, however, that other issues, while not intrinsically evil, deserve prayerful consideration, such as questions of war and capital punishment, poverty issues and matters relating to illegal immigration.
This is clearly true.* The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput)So there you have an authoritative teaching from a thoroughly orthodox and modern bishop who says that capital punishment is not “intrinsically evil” and deserves “prayerful consideration”. Nowhere does he say, proclaim or teach that capital punishment must be abolished here in the USA or anywhere.
You may be right that the whole statement in the CCC is prudential, though it is clearly presented as a ‘teaching’.What is being said here? That capital punishment, being an offense against “the dignity of the human person”, is intrinsically evil? That would indeed be a doctrinal statement, but that isn’t what is said. So what is the doctrine? That we shouldn’t use capital punishment when we don’t need to? …
No objection there. CP is not intrinsically evil, and I know of no Church authority (or serious poster) suggesting that it is.Understand that both JPII and the catechism identify an exception when capital punishment may be used (“if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives”). This alone means its use cannot be intrinsically evil for the term means that the act to which it applies is evil without exception.
What some of the posters seem to be implying is that Pope St. John Paul the Great taught doctrinally rather than prudentially that CP should not be used, ever, and from this conclusion they are implying that CP has now suddenly become, after millennia of Judeo-Christian teachings, intrinsically evil, because a couple Popes and bishops are calling for its abolition.No objection there. CP is not intrinsically evil, and I know of no Church authority (or serious poster) suggesting that it is.
He did not teach the above - not doctrinally nor prudentially.What some of the posters seem to be implying is that Pope St. John Paul the Great taught doctrinally rather than prudentially that CP should not be used, ever, and from this conclusion they are implying that CP has now suddenly become, after millennia of Judeo-Christian teachings, intrinsically evil, because a couple Popes and bishops are calling for its abolition.
A doctrine does not have to be proclaimed infallible to be infallible. This is explained in Lumen Gentium #25. Here is Cardinal Ratzinger’s explanation for why the teaching that the priesthood is reserved for men only is infallible.This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and* from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium** (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). *How else can something be infallible than by us being let known about it? That is proclamation.
It is simply an error to believe that nothing in the Old Testament is relevant today. I already cited the catechism stating that the Noahic covenant will apply to the end of time. That passage in Genesis (9:6) was also cited in the Catechism of Trent so clearly the church hasn’t jettisoned the Old Testament. In fact Gn 9:6 is one of the more often cited passages in the Bible. If the church accepts it why should I deny it?And you are being really stubborn about this old Testament law.
If the choice of employing capital punishment depends on our judgment then two people can justifiably come to opposite conclusions concerning its use, and it would not be accurate to say either of them has sinned in forming his position.*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger)But that aside, why do you say that a doctrine can’t incorporate the outcome of a judgement? Why can’t we say CP is OK (moral) when (and only when) in our best judgement, it is necessary for a purpose…?
Wars are “just” on certain bases. But not all persons will evaluate the situation in the same way. Whether or not a war was just is a matter of judgement.If the choice of employing capital punishment depends on our judgment then two people can justifiably come to opposite conclusions concerning its use, and it would not be accurate to say either of them has sinned in forming his position.*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger)
What kind of doctrine allows us to take opposite positions? Doctrine teaches us to feed the poor, but can we really say that we are doctrinally obligated to support this or that specific government poverty program? Doctrines can tell us what our objectives should be but they cannot tell us how to achieve them.
Ender
The doctrine states that only self-defense justifies killing someone. The implication is that either nobody deserves death as a punishment or the dignity they were born with means they always deserve the mercy of not being killed unless it is self-defense. I gave you the exact words of the PopeWhat is being said here? That capital punishment, being an offense against “the dignity of the human person”, is intrinsically evil? That would indeed be a doctrinal statement, but that isn’t what is said. So what is the doctrine? That we shouldn’t use capital punishment when we don’t need to? If that is the case then surely you have to admit that the determination of when it is needed is prudential; it is not possible to doctrinally identify when something is needed.
Understand that both JPII and the catechism identify an exception when capital punishment may be used (“if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives”). This alone means its use cannot be intrinsically evil for the term means that the act to which it applies is evil without exception.
The phrase “defending human lives” is generally interpreted to mean physical defense, but we know that physical defense is not the most important aspect of punishment. It is a valid objective, but it is certainly not the primary one, so it is certainly reasonable to ask, if capital punishment is valid when necessary to achieve a secondary end, why would it not be equally as valid when necessary to achieve the primary end? If we can act against man’s dignity for a secondary purpose surely we can do so for an even more important reason.
So I ask again: what is the new doctrine here?
Ender
I never said the Old Testament is irrelevant. I showed you the clear teaching of John Paul II, but you prefer your private understanding of a Bible verse. But that’s ok. The Roman Catechism quoted the verse, but not as if it was a direct command for the 16th century. Ratzinger has an opinion on Ordinary Magisterium that doesn’t make sense. In order for something to be known, it has to be proclaimed, which just means taught explicitly with infallibility for all to see. He didn’t and couldn’t prove that all bishops taught this at the same time, let alone that they intended it to be infallibleA doctrine does not have to be proclaimed infallible to be infallible. This is explained in Lumen Gentium #25. Here is Cardinal Ratzinger’s explanation for why the teaching that the priesthood is reserved for men only is infallible.This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and* from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium*** (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2).
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html
It is simply an error to believe that nothing in the Old Testament is relevant today. I already cited the catechism stating that the Noahic covenant will apply to the end of time. That passage in Genesis (9:6) was also cited in the Catechism of Trent so clearly the church hasn’t jettisoned the Old Testament. In fact Gn 9:6 is one of the more often cited passages in the Bible. If the church accepts it why should I deny it?
Ender
The same is true of capital punishment, which is why there can no more be a doctrine defining whether its use in a particular instance is just than there can be a doctrine defining whether a particular war is just.Wars are “just” on certain bases. But not all persons will evaluate the situation in the same way. Whether or not a war was just is a matter of judgement.
“In a particular instance” - certainly. But why not in “in principle”. CP is just under numerous conditions (eg. Determined by legitimate authority, etc.). Why cannot there be other conditions?The same is true of capital punishment, which is why there can no more be a doctrine defining whether its use in a particular instance is just than there can be a doctrine defining whether a particular war is just.
Ender
Actually this is not stated at all. This is an inference from what was said, and there is a major problem with this interpretation. The one prohibition against killing in self defense is that it not be intended: you may kill but you may not intend to kill.* “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended, the other is not.”* (CCC 2263)The doctrine states that only self-defense justifies killing someone.
We are allowed to execute someone to protect ourselves, but here you are saying such a punishment is undeserved. How is it we are allowed to apply an unjust punishment to someone else when it is beneficial to ourselves? This surely seems like an example of doing something evil that good may come of it…which is explicitly forbidden.The implication is that either nobody deserves death as a punishment…
The church teaches that mercy is not appropriate in all situations. Your interpretation contradicts that teaching and holds that mercy is always deserved.* The church can forgive nothing except to a penitent, that is to say, to a person whom Christ has touched with his grace: Christ does not wish to consider anything forgiven in a person who despises the church"* (Blessed Isaac of Stella - cited by JPII)…or the dignity they were born with means they always deserve the mercy of not being killed unless it is self-defense.
No, as you stated above, what you wrote is what you believe was implied by his words, and there are clearly problems with your interpretations.I gave you the exact words of the Pope.
It is not my private understanding. I have been citing the church’s interpretation of that passage. Here’s another example.I never said the Old Testament is irrelevant. I showed you the clear teaching of John Paul II, but you prefer your private understanding of a Bible verse.
As explained above, this teaching remains necessary for all time.The Roman Catechism quoted the verse, but not as if it was a direct command for the 16th century.
It really wasn’t Cardinal Ratzinger but JPII who was applying the teaching put forth in Lumen Gentium about the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium when teaching in concert with the pope. You are right to an extent, however, in that not all doctrines that are in fact infallible have been claimed to be so. No one could claim the prohibition against female priests was infallibly taught until it was explicitly proclaimed, but it wasn’t infallible because JPII proclaimed it as such. He observed that it was infallible because it had been taught infallibly. Fr. Hardon’s comments about capital punishment are in that same category.Ratzinger has an opinion on Ordinary Magisterium that doesn’t make sense. In order for something to be known, it has to be proclaimed, which just means taught explicitly with infallibility for all to see. He didn’t and couldn’t prove that all bishops taught this at the same time, let alone that they intended it to be infallible
There can be other conditions, but there must be a logical consistency among all of the doctrines. Suppose it was doctrinally declared to be immoral to execute a person unless it was believed necessary to protect the public. As I understand it this is pretty much what is being asserted.“In a particular instance” - certainly. But why not in “in principle”. CP is just under numerous conditions (eg. Determined by legitimate authority, etc.). Why cannot there be other conditions?
It’s not self-defence because the defence arises solely from the death. Thus, death is willed.“**if **this is the only possible way of effectively **defending **human lives against the unjust aggressor… [as this is] more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”
Explain to me (1) how that is not doctrinal (2) not self-defense.
“The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended, the other is not.” (CCC 2263)
Exactly, this Catechism teaches that we intend to “defend human lives against the unjust aggressor” but directly intending to kill him is against his dignity, whether because no sin against humans deserves death, or because mercy is always to be blessed on a human because of his dignity.
“The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.” The part in bold, not the killing, it was “remains forever”
The Pope’s statement on “circumstances in the modern world” are in the nature of temporal judgement not doctrine.“**if **this is the only possible way of effectively **defending **human lives against the unjust aggressor… [as this is] more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”
Explain to me (1) how that is not doctrinal (2) not self-defense.
“The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended, the other is not.” (CCC 2263)
Exactly, this Catechism teaches that we intend to “defend human lives against the unjust aggressor” but directly intending to kill him is against his dignity, whether because no sin against humans deserves death, or because mercy is always to be blessed on a human because of his dignity.
“The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.” The part in bold, not the killing, it was “remains forever”