E
Ender
Guest
Sorry, the bishops referred to “inadmissible” as “an eloquent ambiguity”. I guess it is eloquent because we know what that means even if we don’t know what it means.
Last edited:
Federal Executions Pit The Trump Administration Against The Catholic Church
- Status
G
graciew
Guest
“After the first murder recorded in the Bible, God did not end Cain’s life, but rather preserved it, warning others not to kill Cain (Gn. 4:15). As the Church, we must give concrete help to victims of violence, and we must encourage the rehabilitation and restoration of those who commit violence. Accountability and legitimate punishment are a part of this process. Responsibility for harm is necessary if healing is to occur and can be instrumental in protecting society, but executions are completely unnecessary and unacceptable, as Popes St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have all [articulated]”
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
The issue is not whether bishops oppose the use of capital punishment; the issue is whether their opposition is prudential or if there is a new doctrine that morally forbids it. Clearly the latter is not the case.
…executions are completely unnecessary and unacceptable, as Popes St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis have all articulated.
“Unnecessary and unacceptable” are judgments; they are not moral commands, nor was there ever anything said by JPII or BXVI suggesting that capital punishment was per se immoral, and if that is the case then it is unquestionably a judgment about when it ought to be used, and that judgment belongs to the State…as the church has taught for centuries.
G
graciew
Guest
- The Holy Father Pope Francis on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publicaron of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum , by which John Paul II promulgated the Cathecism of the Catholic Church ,asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times.
This development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”
Last edited:
R
ReaderT
Guest
I’ve heard that argument but I’m not convinced. We’ve always (since antiquity) had the ability to take lock someone away from the public. The ancients found the money to build the Coliseum, the Great Wall, the Pyramids, the Versailles Palace - they could’ve easily funded jails.
Last edited:
I would be very interested to see these examples of jails the ancients had that were as secure as what we are capable of today.
E
Ender
Guest
It is not at all obvious that modern prisons are more secure than Roman mines, Spanish galleys, or medieval dungeons. I haven’t seen anything suggesting they struggled to manage their inmates.
R
ReaderT
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
I also agree with Ender:
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Do you remember when El Chapo escaped from one of the most secure prisons in Mexico? I think the real challenge to this new found position on the death penalty is in places where the bad guys are funded as well as (or better than) the government.
O
OneSheep
Guest
You mean like those places where criminals are better funded than the courts also? Gue$$ what the profile would be of tho$e who manage not to get a death $entence?
So, on top of the corruption and the insult to human dignity you have an added injustice for those who can’t buy their way out of sentences.
Mexico is an example of why not to have the DP…
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
I think the real challenge here is understanding the true nature of punishment. So long as the argument in favor of the death penalty depends on whether or not it is assumed to be necessary for protection, that lack of understanding will persist.
Protection is a valid objective of punishment, but it is not primary, and it cannot set the severity of the punishment except marginally. Beyond that, Francis’ change to the catechism appears to rule this argument irrelevant anyway. So what is left? Is there any argument that the position the church expressed for 2000 years was, and is, correct?
Yes, I think there is. First, the changes to the church’s explanation of capital punishment have been a muddle since 1992. So what has changed, and are the changes doctrinal or prudential? What are the implications if we assume they are doctrinal?
The claim is made that Francis must be correct because he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, but if that is true of Francis it must have been equally true of all his predecessors, yet if he is right then they were all wrong, so we have to jettison our belief that the Spirit guides and protects the church.
We could of course believe that morality changes with the times, which would have us reject the teaching that “The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history”, which would also signify that the catechism itself was an unreliable guide.
We would have to discount the virtually unanimous position taken by the Fathers on this matter, but in that case it would mean rejecting the teaching of Vatican I that “it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.” Along with that would be the denial that the church had fulfilled “her mission of authentically interpreting God’s law.” (VS #45)
Discarding the traditional teaching on capital punishment also involves discarding the claim that “sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.” (DV 10) All we’d be left with is…the Pope.
The alternative is to accept the teachings from JPII forward as prudential objections to its application in current circumstances rather than moral objections to its use per se. In addition to avoiding all of the catastrophic objections I mentioned, it also fits much better with what seems to be the church’s actual position on punishment.
E
Ender
Guest
Punishment
What justifies any punishment, and what is it meant to accomplish? Punishment is an obligation imposed on the state by justice itself, and what justifies a punishment is one thing alone: that it is just. Determining what is just is a matter of judgment to a degree, but the bounds are set primarily by the nature of the crime; this is why the church teaches that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.
We are ready to accept punishments that don’t protect, don’t deter, and don’t rehabilitate, but we are not prepared to accept ones that are unjust, that is, disproportionate to the crime in point of severity or leniency. Timothy McVeigh was executed for killing 168 people in Oklahoma. Given the nature of his crime, that was a just sentence. Anders Breivik murdered 77 people in Finland in 2011, was sentenced to 21 years in prison, and is now eligible for parole. That is an unjust sentence, an “insult to justice.”
In the case where human life is made the object of a criminal gamble, where hundreds and thousands are reduced to extreme want and driven to distress, a mere privation of civil rights would be an insult to justice. (Pius XII)
Through all the discussions of the “changes” to capital punishment, one thing has remained completely unchanged: the teaching on punishment. Its four objectives are still “rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution” (Dulles), and the state still has the “duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime” (CCC 2260)
This discussion is not about protection. It is about justice.
What justifies any punishment, and what is it meant to accomplish? Punishment is an obligation imposed on the state by justice itself, and what justifies a punishment is one thing alone: that it is just. Determining what is just is a matter of judgment to a degree, but the bounds are set primarily by the nature of the crime; this is why the church teaches that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.
We are ready to accept punishments that don’t protect, don’t deter, and don’t rehabilitate, but we are not prepared to accept ones that are unjust, that is, disproportionate to the crime in point of severity or leniency. Timothy McVeigh was executed for killing 168 people in Oklahoma. Given the nature of his crime, that was a just sentence. Anders Breivik murdered 77 people in Finland in 2011, was sentenced to 21 years in prison, and is now eligible for parole. That is an unjust sentence, an “insult to justice.”
In the case where human life is made the object of a criminal gamble, where hundreds and thousands are reduced to extreme want and driven to distress, a mere privation of civil rights would be an insult to justice. (Pius XII)
Through all the discussions of the “changes” to capital punishment, one thing has remained completely unchanged: the teaching on punishment. Its four objectives are still “rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution” (Dulles), and the state still has the “duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime” (CCC 2260)
This discussion is not about protection. It is about justice.
O
OneSheep
Guest
It was equally true of his predecessors. The magisterium has been guided by the Spirit all along.
My source is the CCC, which Catholics believe is guided by the Spirit. What is the source of your saying “if he is right then they were all wrong”? What is your source?
BTW, if you want to continue this conversation elsewhere, here is another spot:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ore-biden-inauguration.8190791/#post-75600589
Suudy
Active member
I’m not sure this is true. Indeed, I’m fairly certain it is not true. At least not in the same way infallibility is defined. I’m not aware of any doctrine that the Catechism is free from error.
T
TMC
Guest
My understanding is that the Catechism is the “sure teaching of the Church,” which means that if it is in the Catechism that is what the Church teaches. I take issue with those that suggest the Catechism is merely a suggestion, or just one man’s opinion, and so forth. It is the Church’s teaching.
But, the Catechism is not declared infallible in toto. That should not really matter to Catholics, because (among other reasons): i) all Church teaching is binding whether “infallible” or otherwise, and ii) the Church does not publish any list of what teachings are infallible, so even if non infallible teachings were somehow optional (which they are not), we do not know with certainty which ones would be in that category.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, we accept that popes are guided by the Spirit in matters of doctrine, thus we would not expect there to be any contradiction between them, but this would be true only for matters of doctrine. Popes are not necessarily guided by the Spirit in their prudential judgments.
So: can opposite moral positions be proclaimed as doctrine by different popes? It would seem not. Does Francis’ position contradict that of his predecessors? It would seem so.
If popes are protected by the Spirit from doctrinal error, yet two popes hold opposite positions then it would seem either that at least one of those positions must be a judgment, or the Spirit is not guiding the church. That’s a pretty easy choice.
Thank you. I’m not sure where I’m going next year, but I’ll wait until the last minute to leave here.
Here we have the same problem I just addressed above: if what is in the church’s catechisms are “sure teachings” then how is it that the Catechism of Trent says one thing about capital punishment and the present catechism (with Francis’ change to 2267) essentially says the opposite? Is this one “really sure” and that one only “kind of sure”? You cannot give authority to one catechism and withhold it from the other, yet you cannot grant it to both as that would set up the impossible situation where “sure teachings” contradict one another.
Suudy
Active member
I don’t think the argument here related to CCC 2267 is whether the Catechism is what the Church teaches. It seems to me the questions are a) is the Catechism clear and b) are revisions to the Catechism consistent with the whole of the Church’s teachings. I’m not seeing any argument that it is merely a suggestion, or even just informative, but rather with how to reconcile the latest revisions to CCC 2267 with the who of Church history and teaching.
T
TMC
Guest
Really? Because I have repeatedly encountered the argument that the teaching on the death penalty is merely Pope Francis’ opinion, or merely a suggestion. Not on this thread, perhaps, but those that advocate allowing retaliatory governmental killings like to suggest as much. That is why posters refer to it has “Francis’ teaching.” It is the Church’s teaching, and it is not merely an opinion or a suggestion. Folks are free to disagree with it. I certainly disagree with some of the Church’s teachings. But we should not pretend it is not the Church’s teaching.
Suudy
Active member
I don’t think that’s the point. I think the point is that this revision has the appearance of contradicting Church history with respect to DP. The arguments (circular as they seem) to be about whether this is an actual development in doctrine (which I agree with @Ender cannot be) or whether there is some nuance. The problem, then, is the clarity of the current revision.
I guess my problem is that one side says, “The Catechism contradicts 2000 years of Church history.” And the other side says, “The Catechism explains a change in doctrine.” And never the twain shall meet.
In my conversion, I was awakened to the both/and approach. I think the current revision is some sort of doctrinal development AND the current revision is unclear and ambiguous. I think the arguments by some here are trying to tease out what is really meant by the revision and to clarify this position I find myself sitting. They aren’t doing it for my sake. But I think that’s what is trying to happen.
- Status