Do you support the death penalty?

[passer_by]

Of course. My opinion is not binding on anyone else just as no one else’s opinion is binding on me. We may as legitimately disagree about whether imprisonment adequately protects society as whether the Yankees are better than the Red Sox. I also believe, however, that it was imprudent to insert an opinion into the catechism.

Yes, you may legitimately disagree. But there can of course be an objective answer based on statistics of criminal escape rate, success of rehabilitation etc.

In this case, the decision is taken completely away from you and Theology and it lies with experts in that field to determine if we still need the death penalty.

Here in lies the irony that as far as I can tell, you are not such an expert. You are definitely well versed in Church history and Church Doctrine but you are using that to punch above your weight.

I don’t argue so much that capital punishment provides greater safety - although I believe it does - as I persist in maintaining that its use is more in line with Catholic teaching than the rejection of its use.

Actually that is what I am afraid is your problem.

Both to practice the death penalty and not practice it are in line with Catholic teaching. Its just like both going to war and not going to war are in line with Catholic teaching.

The fact that you have a bias toward one certainly says that you have misunderstood the Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty.

If your point is that the death penalty is unnecessary because it isn’t needed for public safety I would respond that that point is irrelevant to its necessity. It is needed not because it does (or does not) protect us but for a proper understanding of the order of good and evil. I agree with this comment from Professor Steven Long (U. of St. Thomas, MN):

So here in lies a grave error in your thinking. As Catholic teaching in the 20th Century have made it clear, if we have OTHER means to protect the public, then the Death Penalty is UNNECESSARY.

Now your insistence that the death penalty is a necessity is a flaw in your understanding. You seem to want to pick the teachings of the Church you like and ignore the ones in this century. It doesn’t work that way.

*The medicinality of penalty is not merely a function of “stopping” an offense, nor merely of deterring, but of manifesting the truth regarding the transcendent order of justice and the wickedness of the offense. Without this manifestation of truth in penalty, social healing is not promoted. **The medicinal value is not merely one of stopping prospective injustice, but of teaching and manifesting the truth. ***

I think you need to read Dignitas Humanae and Evangelium Vitae and reconcile your current view with those. You can’t simply ignore them and use older teaching. Either you take the reconciled view or you don’t.

The reconciled view has been expounded in those documents. They clearly say that if you have OTHER means to safeguard the public, then the Death Penalty is unnecessary.

At that point, then the matter becomes a secular matter of determining whether we CAN safeguard the public. This is where the ability to legitimately disagree with abolishing the Death Penalty for a Catholic comes in.

Now it might be that the expert data and opinions on this matter of safe guarding the public is very clear. Then the ones who still advocate the Death Penalty are practicing their freedom to disagree but are intellectually wrong (not morally… since I don’t think it is immoral to be intellectually impaired).

His comment seems exactly in line with the beliefs of Pius XII:

For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong. (Sixth Congress of International Penal Law, 1953)

Ender

The Church didn’t end with Pius XII. So either you listen to the Pope’s that came after as well or there is nothing to talk about.

 

[LittleSoldier]

We covered this. The Church is protected from error in matters of doctrine, not in matters of fact. It is ironic that you make this argument in that I hold that the current catechism is wrong on a question of fact while your position is that the Church was for 2000 years wrong on a matter of doctrine.

Ender

No, Ender - you think you covered it. I have not conceded. I have NEVER stated that the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years on a matter of doctrine. I have NEVER stated that the Church has EVER been wrong on a matter of doctrine. What I HAVE stated is that I bow to the authority of the Magisterium. It is YOUR argument that the current catechism is in error; not mine. If YOU are claiming there is error in the CCC you are setting yourself up as pope - Pope Ender. Your source to back up your position is a college professor and is not part of the Magisterium and neither are you. Although I have tried so many times to explain it to you, you cannot (or will not) seem to comprehend that our understanding of doctrine DEVELOPS OVER TIME. I have already provided an example using *in vitro * fertilization. Times change and the Church needs to show how her teachings apply to new situations; for example *in vitro *fertilization and cloning did not exist when the Church was established and so there were no prohibitions against these practices. But the Church has always taught that human beings are created in the image of God and are to be treated with respect and dignity.

The Church has always taught that law should correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and be in conformity to the dignity of the human person. This is why now that we can have life in prison without the possibility of parole that "if bloodless means are sufficient to defend human life against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons public authority should limit itself to such means. [CCC 2267, underlining added for emphasis]

“The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.” [CCC 1956, underlining added for emphasis]

“Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds man among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.” [CCC 1957, underlining added for emphasis]

This is WHY public authority should limit itself to bloodless means, if possible - because it is more in being with the dignity of the human person (which is the natural law).

 

[LittleSoldier]

What is there to elaborate the Church allows for(always has) the pope reiterated a Catholic could support it

Hmmm…evidently I’m not getting through and I apologize for that. Please let me try again.

Do you believe that Catholics can support the death penalty when the innocent can be protected without the execution of the alleged murderer?

Do you believe the death penalty should be used in all cases of murder?

Do you believe that Society has the ability to determine guilt, including culpability, to the point that every person who is executed for murder is not innocent of that murder?

Do you believe that the Church’s understanding of doctrine can develop over time?

Do you believe that the CCC contains error?

Do you believe that the faithful must bow to the authority of the Magisterium in all cases?

If you believe that the death penalty is appropriate in some cases, what factors would lead you to believe that it is appropriate?

I realize I’ve added some questions but I am very interested in your thoughts on this subject. We’ve been in threads together before and I respect your opinion. I’m not trying to attack you or your beliefs; I am trying to understand.

 

[estesbob]

Hmmm…evidently I’m not getting through and I apologize for that. Please let me try again.

Do you believe that Catholics can support the death penalty when the innocent can be protected without the execution of the alleged murderer?

Yes

Do you believe the death penalty should be used in all cases of murder?

I dont support the death penalty in any circumstances

Do you believe that Society has the ability to determine guilt, including culpability, to the point that every person who is executed for murder is not innocent of that murder?

No

Do you believe that the Church’s understanding of doctrine can develop over time?

No -I think such an attitude has led to a great ersosion of the faith as people try and twist Church teachings to suport their political veiws

Do you believe that the CCC contains error?

No. However Catholics are not bound by others personal interpretation the Cathecism

Do you believe that the faithful must bow to the authority of the Magisterium in all cases?

In matters of faith and Morals yes. However Cathgolics are not bound by others personal interpretation of what the Magestrium teaches

If you believe that the death penalty is appropriate in some cases, what factors would lead you to believe that it is appropriate?

I dont support the death penatly under any circumstamces

I realize I’ve added some questions but I am very interested in your thoughts on this subject. We’ve been in threads together before and I respect your opinion. I’m not trying to attack you or your beliefs; I am trying to understand.

Ask away-it wont change the fact that the Church has always allowewd for the death penatly and Catholics can in good conscinece support it.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Actually, Pope John Paul II said it – in a way.

Although the majority of Evangelium Vitae calls for no death penalty (and all the arguments appear against a death penalty from both the OT and NT), the Pope wrote:

• “It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and 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.”*

When he said “in cases of absolute necessity” this has been interpreted as that there are some cases which the Pope did believe that the death penalty could be necessary – an exception.

But if one reads the entire Encyclical it clearly does not favor the death penalty. If we take the Pope words literally, there are always other ways to defend society, so the Church still stands opposed in this Encyclical. I think some have confused this statement as the Church’s position that some cases would warrant the death penalty. It’s not “some cases” but, rather, if there was no other way to protect society from this person. That appears to be wherein lies the disagreement.

As we know, and as I have stated, we do have the facilities which will protect society from such people upon conviction, without warranting an execution. There is no contradiction.

After reading the encyclical I agree with your assessment. The Church appears to be rejecting most war as well as the death penalty. And the stipulation contained in the CCC is repeated:

"In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes

I dont support the death penalty in any circumstances

No

No -I think such an attitude has led to a great ersosion of the faith as people try and twist Church teachings to suport their political veiws

No. However Catholics are not bound by others personal interpretation the Cathecism

In matters of faith and Morals yes. However Cathgolics are not bound by others personal interpretation of what the Magestrium teaches

I dont support the death penatly under any circumstamces

Ask away-it wont change the fact that the Church has always allowewd for the death penatly and Catholics can in good conscinece support it.

You’re right - it won’t change that fact and I have no interest in attempting to change that fact. I hope you don’t think I believe that Church teaching can be changed by consensus or by my opinion alone or that I am a “Cafeteria Catholic.” If my opinion conflicts with Church teaching I have to change my opinion. Thank you for your answers.

 

[Ender]

In this case, the decision is taken completely away from you and Theology and it lies with experts in that field to determine if we still need the death penalty.

We are agreed that this is not a theological question. As such, it should not have been included in the Catechism; that is the place for doctrine, not opinion.

Here in lies the irony that as far as I can tell, you are not such an expert. You are definitely well versed in Church history and Church Doctrine but you are using that to punch above your weight.

Not really. First, JPII was not an expert on criminology either; second, addressing prudential issues is also the responsibility of the laity - meaning you, me, and everyone else - and third, my primary argument against the abolition of capital punishment has nothing to do with this point. My position is unchanged regardless of whether prison sufficiently protects society or not.

Actually that is what I am afraid is your problem.

This is an assertion. Do you have an argument to go with it to defend your opinion?

The fact that you have a bias toward one certainly says that you have misunderstood the Catholic Teaching on the Death Penalty.

Would you care to test my understanding?

So here in lies a grave error in your thinking. As Catholic teaching in the 20th Century have made it clear, if we have OTHER means to protect the public, then the Death Penalty is UNNECESSARY.

Repeating what is in the catechism is not really an argument. We all know what it says. The point here is that I disagree with it and, as it is a prudential position and not new doctrine, my disagreement is allowable.

Now your insistence that the death penalty is a necessity is a flaw in your understanding. You seem to want to pick the teachings of the Church you like and ignore the ones in this century.

You mean like you selecting 2267 and EV 56 and ignoring everything else the Church has said on the subject for 2000 years? Why does the flaw lie with me for choosing to believe what was taught for 1995 years and not with you for believing what has been said for the last 15?

I think you need to read Dignitas Humanae and Evangelium Vitae and reconcile your current view with those. You can’t simply ignore them and use older teaching. Either you take the reconciled view or you don’t.

Evangelium Vitae raised the issue and I have read what it says. I don’t believe Dignitatis Humanae touches on the subject; if you believe otherwise cite the passage you think is helpful. Nor does 2267 represent a reconciled view. It is a break from tradition, not a development from it, and inasmuch as neither 2267 nor EV 56 point to anything at all in support of this new position it really a stretch to claim it developed from Church teaching.

The Church didn’t end with Pius XII. So either you listen to the Pope’s that came after as well or there is nothing to talk about.

Nor did the Church begin with JPII; how is it that you can ignore everything the Church has ever taught on this subject? The question before us is whether 2267 is prudential or new doctrine and you have presented no argument at all to defend your position; you have merely stated that you are right and I am wrong. You may not be convinced by my arguments but at least I have presented one and I look for you to do the same.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I have NEVER stated that the Church has EVER been wrong on a matter of doctrine.

2267 is a significant change from traditional Church doctrine on capital punishment. If 2267 is a new doctrine we should at least acknowledge that it is also a rejection of the old one. That doctrine being that capital punishment was acceptable as an exercise of retributive justice. This new doctrine rejects that position. Therefore, if 2267 is doctrine as you claim and not merely prudential opinion as I claim, then the earlier doctrine was wrong.

If YOU are claiming there is error in the CCC you are setting yourself up as pope

Either the traditional teaching of the Church contained the restriction JPII alluded to or it didn’t; that is a matter of fact, not doctrine. So - where did this tradition arise? We have already seen that the early Fathers *“were virtually unanimous is their support for capital punishment.” *Cite a single document prior to the latter part of the 20th century that opposes the use of capital punishment. You won’t find any. You will find, however, ample examples of support for its use. I can cite a dozen documents to support my position and neither you nor anyone else can cite even one in support of the claim made in 2267.

you cannot (or will not) seem to comprehend that our understanding of doctrine DEVELOPS OVER TIME.

Explain the development of a doctrine that begins with “X is allowed” and ends with “X is not allowed.” If you replace X with “capital punishment as an exercise of retributive justice” you can see the problem.

This is WHY public authority should limit itself to bloodless means, if possible - because it is more in being with the dignity of the human person (which is the natural law).

If executing a man is an affront to his dignity, how is it that we are allowed to do it to secure our own safety? Why is our physical safety of such importance that we may sacrifice the human dignity of others to secure it? If now physical safety is the greatest good, why do we even need to wait for someone to commit a crime before executing him? Can’t we just go ahead and do it? Surely we are safer if we act before crimes are committed rather than after. These questions are seemingly ridiculous but that’s because I don’t think you’ve addressed the implications of the position you’re endorsing.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

2267 is a significant change from traditional Church doctrine on capital punishment. If 2267 is a new doctrine we should at least acknowledge that it is also a rejection of the old one. That doctrine being that capital punishment was acceptable as an exercise of retributive justice. This new doctrine rejects that position. Therefore, if 2267 is doctrine as you claim and not merely prudential opinion as I claim, then the earlier doctrine was wrong.

This appears to be an attempt to change the subject. If the CCC has a *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *we know that whatever is contained within it is not against Church teaching. You are saying that the CCC contains ERROR. Now what guarantee do I, as a faithful Catholic, have that the CCC contains nothing that goes against Church teaching? If the CCC part on capital punishment includes ERROR what other parts of the CCC are also in ERROR? Maybe the part on abortion? Or stem cell research? Or euthanasia? Why should I follow supposed Church teaching when it is presented to me with a sham guarantee that it does not contain error?

If I believed the CCC contains error I would have to leave the Church because I would know that it is not the true Church, not the Church Jesus founded. Right now I’m going to start ripping my CCC up because you (and a university professor) have stated that it contains error. If that is true it makes the CCC worse than useless; it makes what is presented as official Church teaching a LIE.

Either the traditional teaching of the Church contained the restriction JPII alluded to or it didn’t; that is a matter of fact, not doctrine. So - where did this tradition arise? We have already seen that the early Fathers *“were virtually unanimous is their support for capital punishment.” *Cite a single document prior to the latter part of the 20th century that opposes the use of capital punishment. You won’t find any. You will find, however, ample examples of support for its use. I can cite a dozen documents to support my position and neither you nor anyone else can cite even one in support of the claim made in 2267.
Explain the development of a doctrine that begins with “X is allowed” and ends with “X is not allowed.” If you replace X with “capital punishment as an exercise of retributive justice” you can see the problem.

Where have I EVER stated that Church teaching regarding “capital punishment as an exercise of retributive justice” was allowed and now isn’t? Where have I EVER stated that the Church teaches that the death penalty cannot be used? Why do you keep putting words in my mouth? Why do you keep accusing me of doing things I have not done?

Look, Ender, I am a simple person. I trust the Church to tell me what to do. I don’t have to do the research you seem impelled to do and present and that is because I believe that what the Church teaches me is correct. Now you are telling me that what the Church is teaching is in error - that the *Nihil Obstat *and *Imprimatur *should not be there at the beginning of the current CCC. So what do you want me to do? I guess I’m just going to leave the Church as I no longer have confidence in her teachings.

If executing a man is an affront to his dignity, how is it that we are allowed to do it to secure our own safety? Why is our physical safety of such importance that we may sacrifice the human dignity of others to secure it? If now physical safety is the greatest good, why do we even need to wait for someone to commit a crime before executing him? Can’t we just go ahead and do it? Surely we are safer if we act before crimes are committed rather than after. These questions are seemingly ridiculous but that’s because I don’t think you’ve addressed the implications of the position you’re endorsing.

Ender

We are allowed to do it because the removal of our lives via murder is an affront to OUR dignity. Every human being should be treated with respect and of course that includes the innocent. If the innocent can be protected we do not have to concern ourselves with that particular affront to our dignity; then the dignity of the alleged murderer should be dealt with and it is an affront to his dignity to execute him. Do you understand this?

 

[surritter]

2267 is a significant change from traditional Church doctrine on capital punishment. If 2267 is a new doctrine we should at least acknowledge that it is also a rejection of the old one. That doctrine being that capital punishment was acceptable as an exercise of retributive justice. This new doctrine rejects that position. Therefore, if 2267 is doctrine as you claim and not merely prudential opinion as I claim, then the earlier doctrine was wrong.

Frankly, this is getting tiring; nothing in 2267 violates past teachings of the Catholic Church. Your claim in previous posts was that the death penalty is required. The Church teaches that the death penalty is allowed. And yes, it does have a retributive element to it, but your former claim was that the retributive element can ONLY be carried out via the death penalty. Nothing you have quoted from past teachings regarding the official doctrine on capital punishment stated that it is the only proper punishment for murder.

 

[Ender]

You are saying that the CCC contains ERROR.

This is tedious. You continue to imply that a factual error is no different than doctrinal error when this is clearly not the case. The Church is protected from doctrinal errors, not factual ones. If this were not so then the Church would have disintegrated because of Galileo.

Where have I EVER stated that Church teaching regarding “capital punishment as an exercise of retributive justice” was allowed and now isn’t?

I don’t think you understand the implications of your own position. The Church used to teach that capital punishment was an acceptable form of retributive justice. 2267 says that capital punishment should be restricted solely to cases where the protection of society makes it necessary, thereby implying that retributive justice no longer justifies its use. So, if you accept what 2267 says then you also have to accept that this means previous Church doctrine was incorrect on this subject.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

This is tedious. You continue to imply that a factual error is no different than doctrinal error when this is clearly not the case. The Church is protected from doctrinal errors, not factual ones. If this were not so then the Church would have disintegrated because of Galileo.

Oh for Pete’s sake, the Church would NOT have disintegrated because of Galileo! Galileo was a hot-headed pseudo-scientist who believed that science proves facts. He agreed to not present his theory as fact and then went right ahead and did so. If he did the same thing today he would be ostracized by the scientific community and rightly so.

You stated that the CCC contains ERROR. You did not state that this error is factual or doctrinal. You used only the word “error.” And isn’t doctrine fact? Are you asking me to actually believe that what the Church teaches as doctrine is not fact? If it isn’t fact, what is it? Pretend?

I don’t think you understand the implications of your own position. The Church used to teach that capital punishment was an acceptable form of retributive justice. 2267 says that capital punishment should be restricted solely to cases where the protection of society makes it necessary, thereby implying that retributive justice no longer justifies its use. So, if you accept what 2267 says then you also have to accept that this means previous Church doctrine was incorrect on this subject.

Ender

I DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THIS MEANS PREVIOUS CHURCH DOCTRINE WAS INCORRECT!!

I accept CCC 2267 because the CCC has a *Nihil Obstat *and an Imprimatur. They guarantee that what is stated in the CCC does not go against Church teaching. That is what they mean, you know. If you wish to ignore the teachings of the Magisterium I can’t stop you but I can tell you that, as Catholics, we are to bow to the authority of the Magisterium. Some people pick and choose and are called “Cafeteria Catholics.” I am not one of them.

Doctrine does not change. Doctrine is FACT. But our understanding of doctrine does change. Is this a difficult concept? What is happening with the death penalty is an example of our greater understanding of the dignity of all human beings. You seem bent to keep on ignoring natural law (you know, that which is written on all human hearts?). If you can’t understand this I can’t help you, nor can I make my position more clear to you.

I noticed that you did not respond to CCC 1956-57. Here they are again:

“The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties.” [CCC 1956]

“Application of the natural law varies greatly; it can demand reflection that takes account of various conditions of life according to places, times, and circumstances. Nevertheless, in the diversity of cultures, the natural law remains as a rule that binds man among themselves and imposes on them, beyond the inevitable differences, common principles.” [CCC 1957]

There is one statement you have made with which I agree. This IS tedious.

 

[Ender]

You stated that the CCC contains ERROR. You did not state that this error is factual or doctrinal.

More specifically I said that the claim made in 2267 about the traditional teaching of the Church was incorrect. You didn’t note that this was a question of fact and not doctrine so it was necessary to point that out.

And isn’t doctrine fact?

No. There is no way to prove the truth of any moral doctrine. That’s why “we walk by faith, not by sight.”

I DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT THIS MEANS PREVIOUS CHURCH DOCTRINE WAS INCORRECT!!

Well I guess that’s true. Perhaps I should have said that logically there is no other conclusion. If today’s doctrine is the opposite of yesterday’s doctrine, and if morality cannot change over time, then one of the two doctrines must be wrong. “A” and “not A” cannot both be true.

Doctrine does not change. Doctrine is FACT. But our understanding of doctrine does change. Is this a difficult concept?

Well this doctrine changed. The earlier doctrine recognized as moral the execution of a criminal as a matter of retributive justice. Current doctrine rejects this position.

What is happening with the death penalty is an example of our greater understanding of the dignity of all human beings.

So, your position here is that for 2000 years the Church had a flawed understanding of human dignity?

You seem bent to keep on ignoring natural law (you know, that which is written on all human hearts?).

OK, let’s see what is written there:

*The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: "*If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man", is said in Genesis (9,6). (JPII, Regina Caeli, 2002)

Apparently what is written there is the old doctrine. I am not the one ignoring natural law.

I noticed that you did not respond to CCC 1956-57.

There is nothing to respond to. There is no dispute about man’s dignity, only about what constitutes an affront to it and on that point your reference is silent.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

More specifically I said that the claim made in 2267 about the traditional teaching of the Church was incorrect. You didn’t note that this was a question of fact and not doctrine so it was necessary to point that out.
No. There is no way to prove the truth of any moral doctrine. That’s why “we walk by faith, not by sight.”

Doctrine comes from God. It is fact and unchanging.

Well I guess that’s true. Perhaps I should have said that logically there is no other conclusion. If today’s doctrine is the opposite of yesterday’s doctrine, and if morality cannot change over time, then one of the two doctrines must be wrong. “A” and “not A” cannot both be true.

Incorrect, my illogical friend. Today’s doctrine is not the opposite of yesterday’s doctrine. It is merely that we understand that unchanging doctrine a little bit better.

Well this doctrine changed. The earlier doctrine recognized as moral the execution of a criminal as a matter of retributive justice. Current doctrine rejects this position.

No - the doctrine has not changed and will not change. It is our understanding of the doctrine that has changed. The Church can change discipline, not doctrine.

So, your position here is that for 2000 years the Church had a flawed understanding of human dignity?
OK, let’s see what is written there:

*The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: "*If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man", is said in Genesis (9,6). (JPII, Regina Caeli, 2002)

Apparently what is written there is the old doctrine. I am not the one ignoring natural law.
There is nothing to respond to. There is no dispute about man’s dignity, only about what constitutes an affront to it and on that point your reference is silent.

Ender

Well, gee then, that means that EVERY murderer MUST BE PUT TO DEATH, according to official Church teaching. Is that what you are saying? Before you said there were factors that could be taken into consideration but now you are saying that every single murderer must be executed. No room for discussion. It’s clear. I was wrong, you were wrong, the Church is and was wrong. And not only that, we’d better make sure that blood is shed. That means no injections, no electric chair, no gas chamber, no hanging - unless we stab the to-be-executed first or make sure that sometime during the execution (or I guess before or after, although it’s difficult for deceased people to bleed so we’d better be quick) blood is shed. Blood has to be shed according to that passage. Firing squads would be OK because blood would be shed then.

Or could the passage be referring only to murders in which blood is shed? So if I strangle Aunt Matilda in order to get my inheritance and she doesn’t bleed because I’m very good at strangling people I get to live. Is that what that passage means? Or maybe it means that if I accidentally stick my sister with a pair of nail scissors and a drop of blood appears I should be stuck so that I bleed. Is that what it means? It kinda sounds like “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” and do you remember what Jesus said about that? Well, just in case you don’t, here it is:

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’
But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Therefore, if you bring your gift to the altar, and there recall that your brother has anything against you, leave your gift there at the altar, go first and be reconciled with your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Settle with your opponent quickly while on the way to court with him. Otherwise your opponent will hand you over to the judge, and the judge will hand you over to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny."
[Matthew 5:21-26, New American Bible]

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well."
[Matthew 5:38, New American Bible]

-----continued in next post-----

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of above post-----

Are you seriously using a passage from the bible as quoted by Blessed John Paul II as your basis for your position on the death penalty? CCC 1956 and 1957 show how our understanding of natural law CAN develop over time. Please read the sections again. Back in OT times the Jewish people were subject to very strict dietary laws. Yet, in the NT we have Peter given a vision of a sheet with all sorts of different foods on it and he was told he could eat any of them - even the ones he could not eat before if he were to be obedient to Jewish dietary law.

“The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all the earth’s four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. A voice said to him, ‘Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.’ But Peter said, ‘Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.’ The voice spoke to him again, a second time, ‘What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.’ This happened three times, and then the object was taken up into the sky.”
[Acts 10:9-16, New American Bible]

Something changed. That does NOT mean past Church teaching was flawed. Why can’t you understand that times change, that now we have the ability to keep the innocent safe and that because of that we have the chance to concentrate on the dignity of the people who have been found guilty by other persons of murder? The reason it changed is that our understanding of natural law and doctrine can change. God sent Peter that vision and through His Church we are sent new understanding which is taught by the Magisterium: not you, not that professor, and not me.

I don’t know if the following is official Church teaching but I believe it represents the way the Church is looking at the death penalty:

There is a hierarchy.
The protection of the innocent is at the top of the list. The dignity of the innocent comes first.
But - if we can protect the innocent we can go to the next level of the hierarchy and that is the dignity of the person found guilty.
And, if we can have both, we should. That is why CCC 2267 is worded the way it is:

“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Why does it seem to me that you want to deny mercy to God’s precious lambs?

 

[Ender]

Doctrine comes from God. It is fact and unchanging.

Prove it.

Today’s doctrine is not the opposite of yesterday’s doctrine.

The Church used to teach that capital punishment was a valid from of retributive justice. The Church today (appears to) teach that it is not. Isn’t “not valid” the opposite of “valid”?

Well, gee then, that means that EVERY murderer MUST BE PUT TO DEATH, according to official Church teaching. Is that what you are saying? Before you said there were factors that could be taken into consideration but now you are saying that every single murderer must be executed.

No. There is nothing in what I have said that justifies this assertion.

Or could the passage be referring only to murders in which blood is shed? So if I strangle Aunt Matilda in order to get my inheritance and she doesn’t bleed because I’m very good at strangling people I get to live.

Does this really strike you as a reasoned argument? If you really don’t understand what is meant by the phrase “shedding blood” in this context, read 2260, that will explain it for you.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

Prove it.

God told me so. And I am not kidding. God cannot lie - to do so would be to go against His very nature. The Church is the Body of Christ - that is biblical. What the Church teaches is truth as the Church is God.Truth cannot change; only our understanding of it can change, develop, and become clarified. I’m surprised because I’ve never met a Catholic who believes that doctrine can change.

The Church used to teach that capital punishment was a valid from of retributive justice. The Church today (appears to) teach that it is not. Isn’t “not valid” the opposite of “valid”?

I’m sorry; I thought you were saying that the doctrines were opposite; not the terms “valid” and “not valid.”

No. There is nothing in what I have said that justifies this assertion.

That is what the scripture passage states, isn’t it? Whoever murders shall be killed? Why would there be any reason that anyone who has murdered (for any reason) not be subject to what is said in this bible passage?

Does this really strike you as a reasoned argument? If you really don’t understand what is meant by the phrase “shedding blood” in this context, read 2260, that will explain it for you.

Ender

I know what it means. I wrote what I did for a good reason and that is to show that scripture is complicated. You used that scripture (and the fact that it was quoted by Blessed John Paul II) to back up your position. It may indeed provide some support for your position but it also provides support for mine,

You know, Ender, you ignore an awful lot of what I post. I spent about two hours writing my last post. My email system died in the middle of it and I was working off a draft that I had stored there. I had to start over. I’m not going to spend any more time writing what I feel is truth when it’s going to do no good, with the exception of possibly being interesting to lurkers (and they are an important part of every thread and the reason I have posted as long as I have). But I don’t have enough time to write such posts and then have most of them completely ignored. It’s rude to ignore most of what I write.

I’m not going to change your mind and I never was trying to. You’re not going to change my mind. So, for charity’s sake I am not going to post anymore. You can post and respond to yourself if you want. But I want you to know that I am very saddened by your position. We are supposed to love everyone and to show mercy to everyone.

 

[bac_haywood]

Thoughts from an old man:-

Would those who advocate the death penalty still feel the same if they are in the cell waiting for the executioner if they have been wrongly sentenced?

Would you be prepared to pull the lever?

Even if you felt that they were innocent?

Would you be acting in revenge? as opposed to justice?

Just some thoughts

 

[Ender]

Are you seriously using a passage from the bible as quoted by Blessed John Paul II as your basis for your position on the death penalty?

Given that this is the passage the Church cited as the basis for her position on the death penalty it seems reasonable that I accept it as well.

Back in OT times the Jewish people were subject to very strict dietary laws.

True, but the passage in Genesis is part of God’s covenant with Noah and this teaching will remain necessary for all time.

Something changed. That does NOT mean past Church teaching was flawed.

“Something” changed? What changed was that we went from a teaching where something was allowed to a teaching where that same thing was disallowed. You should at least admit the obvious: both teachings cannot be correct.

Why can’t you understand that times change, that now we have the ability to keep the innocent safe and that because of that we have the chance to concentrate on the dignity of the people who have been found guilty by other persons of murder?

Times change, morality doesn’t and the question of safety is totally irrelevant to the question of retributive justice. It was the teaching on retributive justice that changed.

The reason it changed is that our understanding of natural law and doctrine can change.

For whatever reason, the point is that the doctrine changed, and not merely by developing a fuller meaning but by reversing the earlier doctrine.

I don’t know if the following is official Church teaching but I believe it represents the way the Church is looking at the death penalty:

There is a hierarchy.
The protection of the innocent is at the top of the list. The dignity of the innocent comes first.

According to the Catechism this is incorrect. The primary function of penalty is justice - retribution for the crime already committed (CCC 2266), not protection against the commission of future crimes. Security is a valid objective but it is only secondary.

Why does it seem to me that you want to deny mercy to God’s precious lambs?

Because your opinion of me is an uncharitable one.

Ender

 

[Kouyate42]

There was a time when I did support the death penalty, but now I don’t. Even the risk that one innocent person could die is far too much for me to see the death penalty as a punishment.