Do you support the death penalty?

[Birdpreacher]

Perhaps so, just understand that what he thinks is his prudential judgment; it is not doctrine.

Ender

why would VAtican City have a punishment system that is contrary to Doctrine?

If the DP is the only just punishment for murder as you claim, then why did Vatican City make Life imprisonment the only punishment for all murders?

 

[Ender]

why would VAtican City have a punishment system that is contrary to Doctrine?

If the DP is the only just punishment for murder as you claim, then why did Vatican City make Life imprisonment the only punishment for all murders?

Why do you ask me to intuit something from actions taken rather than deal with my explanations of pronounced doctrine? Why should I assume that because Vatican City eliminated capital punishment in 1969 that this was sufficient to reverse Church doctrine? You are free to interpret that action as you will … I am stuck with what the Church has actually said on the subject.

Ender

 

[AndyF]

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)

I agree with you, but given that there “may be a legitimate diversity of opinion” on this matter can we agree that 2267 is not Church doctrine?

Ender

He could simply be stating a fact. He is also allowed free opinion has defined in Catechism. If he promulgated the agreement I would be surprised.

If memory serves me, I believe the Vatican has already made the opinion on the matter, class Fides Ecclesiastica.

 

[yosupman]

Lumen gentium 25:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

The principles enunciated about the death penalty by the church are not opinions. They are authentic teachings of the church on faith and morals.

Ender: You keep quoting some eccentric paragraph from a response by cardinal ratzinger about the application of the death penalty. In no way does Cardinal ratzinger say the principles the church has enunciated on the death penalty are not authentic teaching on faith and morals.

 

[yosupman]

hmmm…where are all the John Gacy supporters?

Lisa,

What the church has said is that if you can lock somebody up versus killing them, this way is better keeping with human dignity and the chance of conversion.

 

[Ender]

The principles enunciated about the death penalty by the church are not opinions. They are authentic teachings of the church on faith and morals.

2267: “…given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime …”
You cannot seriously believe that this comment is doctrine. The evaluation of a nation’s penal capabilities can never be anything other than opinion, and an opinion - even of a pope - can never be doctrine.

Ender: You keep quoting some eccentric paragraph from a response by cardinal ratzinger about the application of the death penalty. In no way does Cardinal ratzinger say the principles the church has enunciated on the death penalty are not authentic teaching on faith and morals.

Identify for me any doctrine of the Church about which you would expect a pope to say Catholics may legitimately hold a diversity of opinion. If something is doctrine then there can only be one legitimate position. As for Ratzinger’s comment being in an “eccentric” paragraph, I don’t know what that is supposed to mean but it cannot be dismissed merely by attaching a dismissive label to it. Even the USCCB seems to recognize this point as they offer neither “judgment nor condemnation” against those who disagree with their position. Again, what kind of doctrine can it be when bishops look to persuade Catholics rather than instruct them?

Ender

 

[Hastrman]

Lisa,

What the church has said is that if you can lock somebody up versus killing them, this way is better keeping with human dignity and the chance of conversion.

Because nothing says “human dignity” like repeated anal rape, or being shanked just so some guy can join the racist gang of his choice!

Seriously, do you know anything about our prisons?

 

[Ender]

What the church has said is that if you can lock somebody up versus killing them, this way is better keeping with human dignity and the chance of conversion.

Explain this to me: in what way is imprisonment more in keeping with human dignity and in what way is execution an affront to that dignity?

Ender

 

[lisahiku]

Lisa,

What the church has said is that if you can lock somebody up versus killing them, this way is better keeping with human dignity and the chance of conversion.

no, the church has NOT said that. That was John Paul’s personal opinion. Not speaking “ex cathedra”. the church teaches that the death penalty may be used to protect society from heinous criminals.

 

[lisahiku]

Ender has made some excellent points ! thank you!

 

[Birdpreacher]

Why do you ask me to intuit something from actions taken rather than deal with my explanations of pronounced doctrine? Why should I assume that because Vatican City eliminated capital punishment in 1969 that this was sufficient to reverse Church doctrine? You are free to interpret that action as you will … I am stuck with what the Church has actually said on the subject.

Ender

Ender just explain to me that if Catholic Doctrine asserts what you claim it asserts:
That the only just punishment for Murder is the Death Penalty.

Then why has Vatican City, where the Pope exercises supreme legislative, executive, and judicial power, made Life imprisonment the only punishment for all murders?

It follows then that Life imprisonment and the DP are available punishments for all murders, that is unless the Pope is choosing to run Vatican City against the Church’s Doctrine

 

[Ender]

Ender just explain to me that if Catholic Doctrine asserts what you claim it asserts:
That the only just punishment for Murder is the Death Penalty.

You keep trying to make this absolute and I don’t think it is helpful to try to oversimplify this. There are exceptions, there are valid reasons why the death penalty should at times not be used.

Then why has Vatican City, where the Pope exercises supreme legislative, executive, and judicial power, made Life imprisonment the only punishment for all murders?

It follows then that Life imprisonment and the DP are available punishments for all murders, that is unless the Pope is choosing to run Vatican City against the Church’s Doctrine

While the Church has always recognized the right of States to execute criminals she has also recognized that the clergy have different obligations. As far back as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 she clearly separated the two situations.

*18. **Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood ***
No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out.

(“Shedding blood” means, as explained in 2260, taking a life.) It is reasonable to assume that in 1969 the pope determined that the decisions of the Fourth Lateran Council applied to the governance of Vatican City. It should be equally clear, however, that although the council applied this restriction to the clergy it assuredly did not apply it to secular governments.

Ender

 

[Hastrman]

Ender just explain to me that if Catholic Doctrine asserts what you claim it asserts:
That the only just punishment for Murder is the Death Penalty.

Then why has Vatican City, where the Pope exercises supreme legislative, executive, and judicial power, made Life imprisonment the only punishment for all murders?

It follows then that Life imprisonment and the DP are available punishments for all murders, that is unless the Pope is choosing to run Vatican City against the Church’s Doctrine

Execution as the only just punishment for murder can be maintained, and has been.

But mercy is also held virtuous by Catholic ethics, and mercy means “forebearing to inflict, or softening, the full measure of just retaliation, out of love of the other”.

Execution is always just, for crimes that themselves involve the taking of life. The state is also encouraged, however, to be as merciful as it can afford to be.

 

[Birdpreacher]

You keep trying to make this absolute and I don’t think it is helpful to try to oversimplify this. There are exceptions, there are valid reasons why the death penalty should at times not be used.
While the Church has always recognized the right of States to execute criminals she has also recognized that the clergy have different obligations. As far back as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 she clearly separated the two situations.

*18. **Clerics to dissociate from shedding-blood ***
No cleric may decree or pronounce a sentence involving the shedding of blood, or carry out a punishment involving the same, or be present when such punishment is carried out.

(“Shedding blood” means, as explained in 2260, taking a life.) It is reasonable to assume that in 1969 the pope determined that the decisions of the Fourth Lateran Council applied to the governance of Vatican City. It should be equally clear, however, that although the council applied this restriction to the clergy it assuredly did not apply it to secular governments.

Ender

Then why was a DP staute on the books in Vatican city up until 1967?!

 

[Birdpreacher]

Execution as the only just punishment for murder can be maintained, and has been.

But mercy is also held virtuous by Catholic ethics, and mercy means “forebearing to inflict, or softening, the full measure of just retaliation, out of love of the other”.

Execution is always just, for crimes that themselves involve the taking of life. The state is also encouraged, however, to be as merciful as it can afford to be.

Agreed, I am trying to show that Execution only regimes are in accord with RCC just as Life Imprisonment only Regimes are in accord with the RCC. (Our else why would JP II would be out of line with the Church by calling for abolition of the DP) My argument is that both regimes are viable under RCC teaching.

 

[surritter]

good point ender! I get tired of reading on here that the RCC is AGAINST the death penalty and that a person is not pro-life if they support the death penalty.

FACT: The church allows the death penalty.

DEAL WITH IT!

Quite right to say that the Church allows the death penalty. But quite different to say that the Church demands the death penalty, which is what was being presented in this thread (except in certain cases).

 

[Birdpreacher]

Quite right to say that the Church allows the death penalty. But quite different to say that the Church demands the death penalty, which is what was being presented in this thread (except in certain cases).

Thank you!

 

[Hastrman]

Quite right to say that the Church allows the death penalty. But quite different to say that the Church demands the death penalty, which is what was being presented in this thread (except in certain cases).

Has anyone on here maintained that the Church demands the death penalty? I haven’t, Ender hasn’t.

 

[surritter]

Has anyone on here maintained that the Church demands the death penalty? I haven’t, Ender hasn’t.

Ender indeed has maintained this! To paraphrase from my post #156:
Ender claimed (in post #147) that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. And in #153 Ender maintained that the only punishment that has the necessary severity for the crime of murder is the murderer’s own death.
Very clearly, then, Ender has stated that the punishment for murder must be the death penalty. (When I queried that this is at odds with 2667 of the Catechism, Ender simply stated that this paragraph is not official Church teaching, but merely prudential judgment.)

Exceptions can be made if carrying out the death penalty would be against a greater good, but again this is a “prudential judgment” area. The bottom line is that Ender says that the by-the-book doctrine of the Church demands the death penalty.

 

[Hastrman]

Ender indeed has maintained this! To paraphrase from my post #156:
Ender claimed (in post #147) that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime. And in #153 Ender maintained that the only punishment that has the necessary severity for the crime of murder is the murderer’s own death.
Very clearly, then, Ender has stated that the punishment for murder must be the death penalty. (When I queried that this is at odds with 2667 of the Catechism, Ender simply stated that this paragraph is not official Church teaching, but merely prudential judgment.)

Exceptions can be made if carrying out the death penalty would be against a greater good, but again this is a “prudential judgment” area. The bottom line is that Ender says that the by-the-book doctrine of the Church demands the death penalty.

I don’t think he is maintaining that. As I said in another post, it can be maintained that death is the only just penalty for murder. However, mercy consists in forbearing to inflict, or softening, the full penalty called for by justice, out of love for the offender. So any murderer who is not executed can be held to have been shown mercy. To hold that the incidence of execution should decrease, or in practice vanish, is to urge an increase in mercy, not an assertion about justice one way or another.

By definition, mercy is less than perfectly just, but so is preserving the lives of those who do not work for their living. That’s why aid to the unemployed is charity, not “social justice”. They do not deserve their maintenance, though we give it to them out of love—they have a right to it, but it was not earned, and therefore is not directly a matter of justice.

There are always more factors in play than simply justice, even in the “justice system”.