Federal Executions Pit The Trump Administration Against The Catholic Church

[OneSheep]

There is no dialog between the Church and the US government about our use of capital punishment (AFAIK)

Actually, several Bishops have protested the recent scheduled executions, and the bishops have already made a statement to congress.

The words you used was “not moral”…can everyone spot the difference?

Correct. It does not use the word “immoral”. This gets into some very tricky areas, because the Church does not want to promote relativism, as if the morality of the act is different in different situations. But the fact is that in the past people had to choose between an immoral act and a more immoral act, and the more immoral act was to not execute a murderer who might escape. The circumstances have changed. It’s not simple at all.

 

[TMC]

That’s what I was asking.
You claimed to know…was this a mistake?

I do know, but you keep saying I am wrong without saying what you actually think.

No. I am suggesting that the actual teaching has far more nuance to it then you indicate.

I don’t think that “inadmissible” and “against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person, which contradicts God’s plan for man and society” are particularly nuanced. But since you refuse to say what you think the Church’s teaching means, I guess we will have to assume that you know what the Church teaches and are simply trying to evade it.

 

[vz71]

I do know,

Yet you keep claiming something that is not part of the teaching.

I don’t think that “inadmissible” and “against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person, which contradicts God’s plan for man and society” are particularly nuanced.

That would be a mistake.
Our church has much more to say about the topic.

But since you refuse to say what you think the Church’s teaching means

You never directly asked.
Besides, I already made my interpretation and understanding known many posts ago.
You should feel free to go back an reread them.

, I guess we will have to assume that you know what the Church teaches and are simply trying to evade it.

That is a rather uncharitable assumption.
Perhaps when reviewing the posts for my answers you can go through Church teaching on charity.

 

[pnewton]

One of the executions in three weeks will be a woman, again who does not meet the criteria laid out by St. John Paul and his successors. Somehow executing a woman seems a fitting end to this presidency.

 

[graciew]

Yet you keep claiming something that is not part of the teaching.

He keeps claiming what has always been: our human dignity .
It has been made negotiable and “ relative” and it really isn’t

 

[vz71]

He keeps claiming what has always been: our human dignity .

And that the Catholic Church has specified the action to be immoral.

 

[F_Marturana]

The woman was born with brain damage due to her mother’s alcoholism and was repeatedly horribly abused throughout her entire childhood. She eventually developed psychosis.

 

[humbleseeker]

The latest execution:

Alfred Bourgeois: Second death row inmate executed in two days - BBC News

“Courts ruled that Bourgeois had physically and sexually abused his two-year-old daughter before killing her as he passed through Texas while working as a long-haul truck driver.

Prosecutors say he killed her by slamming her head into the car’s window and dashboard”

I imagine if he wasn’t on death row he would have been executed in prison soon after sentencing. Some societies don’t tolerate those who harm children.

 

[F_Marturana]

Disgusting crime.

Joel Steinberg is free from prison and his former wife Hedda Nusbaum never served a day of prison.

Look them up.

 

[humbleseeker]

Yes, another horrible crime. But to my point:

“ Steinberg had spent most of his imprisonment at New York State’s supermax prison, the Southport Correctional Facility, presumably to prevent him from being attacked by other inmates.”

I’m not debating the morality of federal executions or the Church’s teaching regarding the death penalty. My understanding is that a society’s ability to separate criminals from the general population negates the use of death as a means of control. However, when said criminal is introduced into a subset society(prison) where separation is not possible, does the death penalty become morally permissible? This is not a direct question to you or anyone else. Just a thought I’m kicking around and pondering

 

[Feanor2]

MikeInVA:

So the Church has declared capital punishment “immoral” in some way that can’t be articulated.

And I’m personally causing the closure of CAF.

Wow.

Maybe he or she has already signed off for good but this is the area, Bender always debated about.

I did see some sort of Catholic article that laid out what the church’s position is. I’ll have to try to find it later. It may not be that simple.

It is simple. It’s inadmissible. It’s in the CCC.

No quoting of Aquinas or medieval papal bulls can change that.

 

[Feanor2]

TMC:

Catholics like to pretend they don’t “understand” clear teaching that conflicts with their personal political positions.

I understand that for 2000 years, the Church has recognized the authority of states to use capital punishment.

Doesn’t anymore. Get over it.

 

[Feanor2]

TMC:

See, like that.

So, what exactly is the clear teaching?

It’s inadmissible.

 

[F_Marturana]

My point, albeit poorly stated, is the arbitrary standards of death penalty cases.

This person will be executed.

Joel Steinberg is free.

 

[humbleseeker]

Same criminal act but different punishments. I understand your point.

 

[Ender]

It is simple. It’s inadmissible. It’s in the CCC.

That really doesn’t have the significance you give it.

The individual doctrines that the catechism affirms have no other authority than that which they already possess. (Cardinal Ratzinger, 1993)

Given that the latest change to the catechism doesn’t really have a particularly authoritative document supporting it, its mere inclusion in the catechism does not give it what it clearly lacks. As for being “inadmissible”, there may be a dictionary definition for the word, but there isn’t a theological one; no one really knows what it means. This is why the US bishops at their annual meeting last year explained it away as “an eloquent ambiguity.”

As others have surely pointed out, if it means “intrinsically evil” then God commanded evil, and if it doesn’t then by definition there are cases where its use would be justifiable, so in what sense can it be said to be inadmissible? Inadmissible except when it isn’t? It’s no wonder the bishops didn’t want to touch it.

 

[graciew]

Given that the latest change to the catechism doesn’t really have a particularly authoritative document supporting it, its mere inclusion in the catechism does not give it what it clearly lacks.

We ve posted over and over but you go by “ retributive “ and Talion’s law, Ender.
The commandment is “ Do not kill”.
Life has become meaningless and so has human dignity despite so many advances.
We have to explain today what “ human” means, what being a “ person” means leaving us buried and wrapped up with words.
The truth is we are made in the image of God, children of God , nothing is more “ intrinsic” to each of us than that Love.

 

[MikeInVA]

It is simple. It’s inadmissible. It’s in the CCC.

Except that “inadmissible” has never been defined. It sounds like “newspeak”.

 

[vz71]

Except that “inadmissible” has never been defined. It sounds like “newspeak”.

Indeed.
Does ‘inadmissable’ mean ‘immoral’?
If so, why not use ‘immoral’ instead?
If not, please clarify the distinction.

I have a vague idea of what they may be going for, but it is just a vague idea. It is not something that can be confidently taught as part of the catechism.

 

[vz71]

It’s inadmissible.

What exactly does that mean?