Federal Executions Pit The Trump Administration Against The Catholic Church

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me start by pointing out that nothing you said in your response to my post had anything to do with what I just wrote.
graciew said:
We’ve posted over and over but you go by “ retributive “ and Talion’s law
Click to expand...
Retribution is still the primary objective of punishment; it is a matter of justice. It is what the church teaches.

For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis… (St Bellarmine)
The commandment is “ Do not kill”.
Click to expand...
The church has never understood that literally, otherwise her doctrines on a just war and killing self defense would be senseless. Actually, she has always taught there are three exceptions to that commandment.

“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; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)
Life has become meaningless and so has human dignity despite so many advances.
Click to expand...
And this may well be a prudential objection to applying capital punishment today. It is not, however, an eternal, moral objection.
The truth is we are made in the image of God…
Click to expand...
We are indeed, as God himself has told us.

Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Gn 9:6)
 
Last edited:
MikeInVA said:
Except that “inadmissible” has never been defined. It sounds like “newspeak”.
Click to expand...
When one does not understand the Holy Father, is it better to learn than accuse him of being Orwellian. We are the students, not the critics. It is not newspeak. It is a perfectly normal word. The word means something that is not to be tolerated are allowed. There are online dictionaries that help with words we do not know.
MikeInVA said:
I have also seen it translated as, “do not murder” which I think is much clearer.
Click to expand...
and @graciew
It is clearer, but less literal. The word is “kill”. It is the context that tells us it is used for murder, as there is capital punishment written into the very law that said “thou shall not kill.” Using the Ten Commandments is a disingenuous argument against capital punishment.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
It is not newspeak. It is a perfectly normal word.
Click to expand...
It is new in this context. Since the Church has no legal authority over civil governments, she no authority to determine admissibility of something a civil government does.
pnewton said:
The word is “kill”.
Click to expand...
The Knox translation uses the word “murder”. Having read how Msgr. Knox went about translating the texts, his choice of wording is instructive in understanding the full context of the commandment.
pnewton said:
Using the Ten Commandments is a disingenuous argument against capital punishment.
Click to expand...
I completely agree.
 
MikeInVA said:
It is new in this context. Since the Church has no legal authority over civil governments, she no authority to determine admissibility of something a civil government does.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only in the same way that the Church does not have the authority to halt abortion. The Pope most definitely has the moral authority to teach what is right and wrong. The Pope has authority to say a war is immoral, or morally permissible. He does not have authority to send or stop troops.
 
pnewton said:
48.png
MikeInVA:
It is new in this context. Since the Church has no legal authority over civil governments, she no authority to determine admissibility of something a civil government does.
Click to expand...
Yes, but only in the same way that the Church does not have the authority to halt abortion. The Pope most definitely has the moral authority to teach what is right and wrong. The Pope has authority to say a war is immoral, or morally permissible. He does not have authority to send or stop troops.
Click to expand...
Since the Magisterium has clearly taught for millennia that capital punishment is a moral option for the state, the Holy Father has no moral authority to teach the opposite. Therefore a circumlocution was needed in the Catechism to avoid the appearance of repudiating Church teaching.
 
Anesti33 said:
Since the Magisterium has clearly taught for millennia that capital punishment is a moral option for the state, the Holy Father has no moral authority to teach the opposite
Click to expand...
I propose the burden of proof is one a Catholic who is contradicting the Holy Father. The Church also has a just war theory, but a Pope can definitely condemn the Nazi invasion of Poland as immoral. So, where has the Church ever taught that capital punishment is always a moral option? Was Pol Pot acting within his moral rights? No, the Church, the Pope, is still the Vicar of Christ and maintains the teaching authority over specific applications of doctrine, as well as doctrine. What the Pope did was not a “work around.” Again, student, not critic, or if not either, then dissent. That can be a morally permissible option in some cases and with some caveats.

The burden of proof on this is overwhelmingly on the Catholic who dissents though.
 
Last edited:
No, but feel free to throw out another meme as if it had some relevance. I guess that is what this generation’s sense of dialogue has come down to.
 
Grammar matters, especially verb tenses. Yes, it is a development of doctrine. That is what the Church does. It is why God gave us the Holy Spirit, and a pope, instead of a book. Saying that the death penalty has become inadmissible precludes it being intrinsically evil, as what is intrinsically evil does not change with time. Likewise, the death penalty could be come admissible again, say, zombie apocalypses or destruction of society.
 
Plants develop by opening a seed, taking root, and growing a stem with leaves. They don’t develop by folding up and crawling back into the seed that made them. This is an attempt to repudiate doctrine, not develop it.
 
Your point is one of the many examples of why Catholics do not believe in “sola scriptura”.

Except that when there are choices between what violates human dignity and what even more violates human dignity and common good, such as allowing a murderer to continue his violence. This is one of the things that has changed in the last few centuries, along with our growing awareness of the meaning of human dignity and how to uphold it.

Is this conclusion the most favorable explanation?

There is nothing sudden about it. The Spirit has been influencing Catholic teaching in this direction for quite some time.

This is a false dichotomy, as I showed above.

So, since your source of this conclusion is not the catechism, what is your source?

And BTW, those of you seeing the end here might be interested in this other site, where I already have the last word:


Come and get me. 😆
 
I would point out that this restorative necessity for the death penalty did not change under Pope Francis. St. John Paul was the one who pointed out that the need for capital punishment was almost non-existent, as not necessary for the protect of society, not justice. This is precisely where the line is drawn between justice and vengeance.
 
If that is what you believe and think it applies to taking a life. I guess I will bow out. I cannot argue with one who believes in retribution. I gave up with Ender on this point as well. But I will point out once again, this is contrary to what our last three popes have taught, not just Pope Francis.
 
All traditions evolve with unfolding revelation. The change in the CCC is just that, a tradition that has been evolving as the Spirit guides the Church.

If you are prioritizing these writings over the Magisterium, from where comes your greater insight?

God did, which was appropriate at the time. At least those inspired to write scripture believe He did so, which is good enough for me.

Okay, what is the purpose of punishment?

The Tradition of the Church upholds that the Magisterium is guided by the Spirit, and the Magisterium approved of the new wording.

Again, revelation unfolds, so something from 500 years ago does not consider centuries of unfolding revelation through the Spirit. The latest catechism is always the most accurate.
 
Last edited:
Please pardon the non Catholic Christian but the best explanation I heard of this was…

The development of this doctrine has to look back at what the situation was in history with regards to prisons first of all. Prisons in the past were not for long term holding. They didn’t have lifetime prisoners. As society developed the ability to hold prisoners safely behind bars for the rest of their lives, keeping them safe from society…something that wasn’t possible back then…the Church realized that conditions have changed. It can be safely done now.

In certain areas of the world, where this isn’t possible to the degree that first world countries are capable of doing, the church made clear that in these first world countries it’s no longer necessary to execute. It may (key word) still be necessary elsewhere and tolerated.

From what I understood, let me know if I’m off, that due to our ability to contain these prisoners, there is no need to execute them even though the civil authorities still have the right. The prisoner has the right to human dignity above the civil authorities rights.

If I’m wrong somewhere, please let me know.
 
It is a fallacy to say “such-and-such is immoral in a certain time and place, but it is moral in a different time and place.”

We simply cannot rely on any logic that says “capital punishment used to be a moral option but in this day and age, it has turned around and become immoral.”

True, there are circumstances which can render capital punishment inappropriate and immoral, such as summary judgements against political opponents by a despot. But that does not make it intrinsically evil. Likewise, in the present day, there are circumstances that may open preferred options to many nation-states who have the capability of operating maximum-security prisons and handing down life sentences that ensure no harm will be visited on another human being. But all of these circumstances do not affect the fundamental morality of capital punishment.
 
Oh, yes. Very telling. Who are those nobodies to say what the Church teaches? Why listen to all those Vicars of Christ, including the current one, when we can dig around through history for statements that better match our political preferences? Its not like Popes have teaching authority, or really any say about what the Church teaches. Why listen to those guys at all, really?
 
Well that is rather ultramontane of you.
And completely discounts the operation of the Ordinary Magisterium throughout history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top