For Supporters of Capital Punishment

[ddarko]

“Actual Church teaching” as interpreted by … who? You? By quoting the pope and various bishops, pnewton is telling you how the Church understands the issue. It is not a question of choosing between what the bishops believe and what the Church teaches but of choosing between your understanding of Church teaching and theirs, and on that basis you interpretation has little to recommend it.

Ender

You are kidding me right?

I am not doing any theological interpreting here or anything. I am simply stating what the Catechism states. It doesn’t take a High IQ to interpret whats been said there. That is the point of the Catechism. It is for people to easily read and understand Church teaching.

This reminds me of people who try to deny the Humanae Vitae because its ‘suppossedly’ not infallible on its teaching on Contraception, or the dissident Catholics who like to think that Abortion is OK. My advice, pick up the Catechism. Read it properly in its full context. You don’t need theological expertise to understand it. It’s written in plain English as it applies to OUR time.

So once again, as a Roman Catholic, you, me and everyone who adheres to the church stands by it’s teaching. Not a single Bishop or a Pope’s quote. Therefore, your friend is just trying to pick and choose here. The conclusions are therefore way out of line.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

I am not doing any theological interpreting here or anything. I am simply stating what the Catechism states. It doesn’t take a High IQ to interpret whats been said there. That is the point of the Catechism. It is for people to easily read and understand Church teaching.

So is it your position then that the pope and the bishops are unable to understand it as well as you, since their positions clearly differ from yours? If the catechism means what you think it does then one can only conclude that members of the Magisterium aren’t intelligent enough to understand what they wrote. There are really only two possibilities here: either you are wrong or the pope (and a whole lot of bishops) are wrong - and the first possibility seems a great deal more likely.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

So is it your position then that the pope and the bishops are unable to understand it as well as you, since their positions clearly differ from yours? If the catechism means what you think it does then one can only conclude that members of the Magisterium aren’t intelligent enough to understand what they wrote. There are really only two possibilities here: either you are wrong or the pope (and a whole lot of bishops) are wrong - and the first possibility seems a great deal more likely.

Ender

NO, I make no claims on the positions or understandings of the Popes or Bishops. Looking back at history, YOU should know that Bishops and Popes have erred frequently in their personal opinions and musings.

So once again, as Catholics, YOU, ME and EVERY OTHER catholic is to be faithful to Church teachings. That is where you are muddling all this up. That is why I gave you the example of the Pro-choice Clergy.

Just as they are clearly wrong no matter if they are Clergy, so is the case here. I am not here to however analyze when those statements were made. For all I know, these are just statements taken out of context just like people did with the Pope’s condom comments.

So in short, stick to the Catechism. Thats where the teachings are. They are not to be found in a secular website quoting the pope as having said BLA BLA BLA

God Bless

 

[Ender]

Looking back at history, YOU should know that Bishops and Popes have erred frequently in their personal opinions and musings.

I am not looking back at history; I am looking at what is being said in our own time, nor are any other issues relevant to this discussion.

For all I know, these are just statements taken out of context just like people did with the Pope’s condom comments.

These comments are not taken out of context as you are free to read for yourself should you care to.

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm

Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

*The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. *(Archbishop Chaput, 2003)
usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/Chaput05web.shtml

So in short, stick to the Catechism. Thats where the teachings are.

Actually, the Church has been teaching for 2000 years and didn’t suddenly start to document things beginning in 1997. Your interpretation is not supported by anything the Church has ever taught.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

I am not looking back at history; I am looking at what is being said in our own time, nor are any other issues relevant to this discussion.

These comments are not taken out of context as you are free to read for yourself should you care to.

*“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” *(Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
holyhillcross.com/WORTHINESS%20TO%20RECEIVE%20COMMUNION.htm

*Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, *the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput, 2003)
usccb.org/prolife/programs/rlp/Chaput05web.shtml

Actually, the Church has been teaching for 2000 years and didn’t suddenly start to document things beginning in 1997. Your interpretation is not supported by anything the Church has ever taught.

Ender

Once again. No one is arguing that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. That is where you might have gotten me wrong.

I am simply saying that Capital punishment in this day and age is intrinsically immoral BECAUSE now we have the means of correcting these persons. That is what the Catechism states.

So we are not really against each other here. I agree that it is not intrinsically evil. It is just evil under today’s world given our developments in psychology and security. Thus, Capital Punishment becomes an evil act in today’s context.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

I am simply saying that Capital punishment in this day and age is intrinsically immoral BECAUSE now we have the means of correcting these persons. That is what the Catechism states.

Not exactly. If this were true then Cardinal Ratzinger would not have said that there could be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics on the application of the death penalty. After all, there is no legitimate diversity of opinion allowed on abortion and the reason Catholics may hold different positions on capital punishment is that what the Catechism states in 2267 is prudential opinion, not doctrine. Nor does the Catechism say anything about our having the ability to correct criminals; it doesn’t even address this point. 2267 limits the use of capital punishment solely to the ability to protect society from criminals, not its ability to rehabilitate them.

So we are not really against each other here. I agree that it is not intrinsically evil. It is just evil under today’s world given our developments in psychology and security. Thus, Capital Punishment becomes an evil act in today’s context.

It is certainly true that the Church opposes the use of capital punishment, but the opposition comes not from the belief that in today’s societies it is immoral but from a belief that in today’s societies it does more harm than good. The opposition is prudential, not moral - and it is an opinion I don’t share.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

Not exactly. If this were true then Cardinal Ratzinger would not have said that there could be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics on the application of the death penalty. After all, there is no legitimate diversity of opinion allowed on abortion and the reason Catholics may hold different positions on capital punishment is that what the Catechism states in 2267 is prudential opinion, not doctrine. Nor does the Catechism say anything about our having the ability to correct criminals; it doesn’t even address this point. 2267 limits the use of capital punishment solely to the ability to protect society from criminals, not its ability to rehabilitate them.

Aah, that I disagree. The catechism is not teach prudential opinions.

First, in truth, it is the same as abortion. For one, you are killing a human being. Second, you are depriving a person the chance to repent and correct his way of life. After death, the person is damned. They can no longer correct themselves. So in a way, what you do with Capital Punishment is worse than what you would do in an abortion. You are giving the criminal no chance to repent.

And no, rehabilitation is also implied in the catechism. That is what is enclosed in the term “Human Dignity”. A person is to be treated with human dignity which is an intrinsic quality of human life. So whether the person is a murderer, a rapist or a pedophile, the intrinsic worth of that person as a human being is equal to you and I. Thus, we must try and provide proper care to get them back to proper way of living i.e. rehab.

Now even if we look at in the way you put it as excluding rehabilitation, we have enough technology in place to keep criminals from escaping. When was the last time an escaped convict (who deserved the death penalty), cause havoc? Or a terrorist who escaped from prison and caused havoc? None right?
Just take the data from the countries that keep prisoners in life time sentences instead of putting them to death. They don’t escape. Its almost as rare as getting cancer by eating Salad probably.

So God has given human beings enough technology to be able to keep a bunch of inmates secure. The US which is a leading technological giant just doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge it. Countries far lower than it in terms of technology has abolished the death penalty.

About Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments, they were not from an encyclicals or anything that should be regarded as infallible. It is simply from a private musing. We have no reason to adhere to it. So I wouldn’t give it much thought if I were you. Pope’s are allowed to err in their private opinions. In fact, with some books like the Jesus of Nazareth which are theological works, the Pope clearly states that it is his personal work and not his teachings and they might have errors. So I hope you see that you have to know your priorities when it comes to siding. The teachings of the church are priority.

So the Catechism, which is the teachings of the church, CLEARLY state that ‘Today there is no need for Capital Punishment’. That is something you must adhere to and you simply cant dismiss it as just prudential rhetoric.

It is certainly true that the Church opposes the use of capital punishment, but the opposition comes not from the belief that in today’s societies it is immoral but from a belief that in today’s societies it does more harm than good. The opposition is prudential, not moral - and it is an opinion I don’t share.
Ender

You are incorrect.

Under today’s society, it is immoral. Some actions that are not intrinsically immoral, become immoral under the context. For an example, going to McDonalds is not intrinsically immoral. But if I go there and get a Big Mac right after a heart attack, fully well knowing the risks, that is immoral.

It’s similar here. Knowing that we can give a person a second chance to repent and correct themselves, to put him/her to death is not an act of love. It is immoral.

Ask yourself this (you don’t really need to tell me the answer), if the person who is committed the crime was your Son or daughter, or your wife, would you want to end their lives? Or would you want to try and make them repent for what they did and at least try to save their souls?

This is the same with any other criminal. They are our brothers and sisters. We should love them just as much no matter what they have done especially since we have the means to do so safely without causing anyone else further harm.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

Aah, that I disagree. The catechism is not teach prudential opinions.

*"…**given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress **crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it …" *This is an opinion. It is an evaluation of the capabilities of modern penal systems and has nothing whatever to do with either faith or morals. There is no Church doctrine on penology, on what works and what doesn’t. There is no theology that addresses this issue; there is nothing in Aquinas, Augustine, or anywhere in the entire history of Church teaching that speaks to the abilities of modern prisons to safeguard society. Look at your own arguments: they are based not on moral teaching but on claims about whether prisoners have escaped, claims that can be substantiated not by Church doctrine but by statistics. Moral doctrine is not determined by numbers from the Bureau of Criminal Statistics.

They can no longer correct themselves. So in a way, what you do with Capital Punishment is worse than what you would do in an abortion. You are giving the criminal no chance to repent.

The criminal has every chance to repent and the fault is his if he fails to seize it.

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” *(Aquinas)

And no, rehabilitation is also implied in the catechism. That is what is enclosed in the term “Human Dignity”. A person is to be treated with human dignity which is an intrinsic quality of human life.

You read a great deal into what wasn’t written. As I said before, this is your personal interpretation; you provide no citations to suggest that this is how the Church understands that comment. Nor do I think you understand it correctly. As this comment points out, it is only by holding individuals personally accountable for their actions - which means assessing the punishment appropriate to the crime - that we recognize the individual’s dignity.

*But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. *(JPII)

So whether the person is a murderer, a rapist or a pedophile, the intrinsic worth of that person as a human being is equal to you and I.

How do you know this is true? Where in the Bible are we told about the dignity and worth of the individual?

About Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments, they were not from an encyclicals or anything that should be regarded as infallible. It is simply from a private musing. We have no reason to adhere to it.

This goes to your point about “following the Catechism.” If you are right then the pope is incapable of understanding (as you characterize it) the simple words of 2267. Do you really not recognize that what is at issue here is not the pope’s understanding versus the Church but yours versus the pope’s?

So the Catechism, which is the teachings of the church, CLEARLY state that ‘Today there is no need for Capital Punishment’.

Apparently it isn’t clear enough to be understood by the pope and the numerous bishops who don’t agree with you. This isn’t about your understanding versus mine, it is about yours versus those members of the Magisterium who have spoken out on the subject.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

*"…*given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress *crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it …" *This is an opinion. It is an evaluation of the capabilities of modern penal systems and has nothing whatever to do with either faith or morals. There is no Church doctrine on penology, on what works and what doesn’t. There is no theology that addresses this issue; there is nothing in Aquinas, Augustine, or anywhere in the entire history of Church teaching that speaks to the abilities of modern prisons to safeguard society. Look at your own arguments: they are based not on moral teaching but on claims about whether prisoners have escaped, claims that can be substantiated not by Church doctrine but by statistics. Moral doctrine is not determined by numbers from the Bureau of Criminal Statistics.
The criminal has every chance to repent and the fault is his if he fails to seize it.

So you are telling me, that you as a human being is totally able to pass judgement when the life of another person must end? Do you think that is theologically sound?

*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” *(Aquinas)

I really don’t think Aquinas, or the Pope for that matter has a capability of saying what would happen if a person lived a little bit longer. I respect the intelligence of Aquinas but I am afraid he was out of his jurisdiction in speculating what might happen if a person was allowed to live a little longer.

You read a great deal into what wasn’t written. As I said before, this is your personal interpretation; you provide no citations to suggest that this is how the Church understands that comment. Nor do I think you understand it correctly. As this comment points out, it is only by holding individuals personally accountable for their actions - which means assessing the punishment appropriate to the crime - that we recognize the individual’s dignity.

Actually, NO. That is not what the Catechism states. You cannot affirm the dignity of an aborted child by putting the mother to death. I do not even need to cite any resources and I hope that much is clear to you.

Apart from the Catechism writing to it’s full, what more do you need to understand the position of the Church? I am not a big fan of giving private musings of pope and clergy as my references

But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII)

I think you are a bit confused here. No one is saying we are not free. Of course we are free.

Although it is possible to punish, it is to be done with the hope of rehabilitating the person i.e. giving his freedom. Punishment by death is only allowed if one can’t keep society safe from that person which the church acknowledges is no longer the case. More info provide below on next post below.

(Continued…)

 

[ddarko]

(Continued from previous post …)

How do you know this is true? Where in the Bible are we told about the dignity and worth of the individual?

Ok, now I see where your problem is. First, the dignity of the person is not dependent on the status of individual whether criminal, disabled or morally perfect. There are number of enclyclicals on human dignity and I do invite you to read them. They discuss these matters together with Scripture and Tradition. Here are two

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/_INDEX.HTM

If I may draw your attention to part of the Enclyclical Evangelium vitae on this matter, (I bolded some particularly interesting parts of it below)

1. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”.46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and** ensuring people’s safety**, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. 47

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. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

So as you can see, the last line is the same as that of the Catechism. It is not an opinion expressed by the pope but a concrete conclusion. This is actual teaching as well btw and not something from a private musing.

This goes to your point about “following the Catechism.” If you are right then the pope is incapable of understanding (as you characterize it) the simple words of 2267. Do you really not recognize that what is at issue here is not the pope’s understanding versus the Church but yours versus the pope’s?
Apparently it isn’t clear enough to be understood by the pope and the numerous bishops who don’t agree with you. This isn’t about your understanding versus mine, it is about yours versus those members of the Magisterium who have spoken out on the subject.
Ender

Sadly no. I think there is much misconfusion on which sources you have chosen to believe. This might once again be as a result of your pro-death penalty leaning. Do keep in mind that for most pro-choice Catholics, at times it looks like the Clergy are on their side. When clearly, I am sure you would agree, they are not.

Now as I pointed above, even the encyclical is contrary to your view. So at all points where the teaching actually matters, the Catholic position is very clear. The cases you have provided have just been private musings and therefore cannot be given any weight.

God Bless

 

[markomalley]

May Christmas help to strengthen and renew, throughout the world, the consensus concerning the need for urgent and adequate measures to halt the production and sale of arms, to defend human life, to end the death penalty,

- JOHN PAUL II, URBI ET ORBI, 1998
​

A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 27). I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.

JOHN PAUL II, HOMILY, St. Louis, January 27, 1999​

The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty and his Holiness Pope John Paul II has personally and indiscriminately appealed on numerous occasions in order that such sentences should be commuted to a lesser punishment, which may offer time and incentive for the reform of the guilty, hope to the innocent and safeguard the well-being of civil society itself and of those individuals who through no choice of theirs have become deeply involved in the fate of those condemmed to death.

- DECLARATION OF THE HOLY SEE TO THE FIRST WORLD CONGRESS ON THE DEATH PENALTY, 2001

…there still remain various obstacles, such as the participation of some Catholics in sects which witness only to the superstitious; the lack of familiarity with the teachings of the Church; the endorsement by some of anti-life attitudes which include the active promotion of birth control, abortion and the death penalty; and, as I discussed in my last address to the Filipino Bishops, the persistent dichotomy between faith and life…

- ADDRESS OF JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS OF THE PHILIPPINES ON THEIR AD LIMINA VISIT, 2003
​

I rejoice that on 18 December last the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution calling upon States to institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and I earnestly hope that this initiative will lead to public debate on the sacred character of human life.

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI TO THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS ACCREDITED TO THE HOLY SEE FOR THE TRADITIONAL EXCHANGE OF NEW YEAR GREETINGS, Monday, 7 January 2008 ​

I commend the Church in the Philippines for seeking to play its part in support of human life from conception until natural death, and in defence of the integrity of marriage and the family. In these areas you are promoting truths about the human person and about society which arise not only from divine revelation but also from the natural law, an order which is accessible to human reason and thus provides a basis for dialogue and deeper discernment on the part of all people of good will. I also note with appreciation the Church’s work to abolish the death penalty in your country.

- ADDRESS OF BENEDICT XVI TO THE BISHOPS OF THE PHILIPPINES ON THEIR AD LIMINA VISIT, 2010
​

FYI: Some more from Cardinal Dulles in his 2001 writing on the subject:

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.
…
7) The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

1. The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.
   …
2. Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition.

(Note: I personally agree with the positions taken by JPII and BXVI on the issue. Not that capital punishment should be ruled out in all circumstances, but it should not be used if society can be protected through the use of lesser penalties)​

 

[Ender]

(Note: I personally agree with the positions taken by JPII and BXVI on the issue. Not that capital punishment should be ruled out in all circumstances, but it should not be used if society can be protected through the use of lesser penalties)

I recognize that JPII and BXVI personally opposed the death penalty but I am more concerned with the arguments against it than the mere fact of their opposition. I think the reason they objected to its use is addressed by this comment from Dulles:

8. The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.

This strikes me as the probable reason the last two popes oppose capital punishment, because they believed it contributed to the disrespect for the value of human life. This is a point I dispute, but beyond that the arguments used against capital punishment, particularly those in 2267, are poorly conceived.

Answer this: what is the primary objective of all punishment and what obligation does that objective impose?

Ender

 

[ddarko]

I recognize that JPII and BXVI personally opposed the death penalty but I am more concerned with the arguments against it than the mere fact of their opposition. I think the reason they objected to its use is addressed by this comment from Dulles:

8. The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.

This strikes me as the probable reason the last two popes oppose capital punishment, because they believed it contributed to the disrespect for the value of human life. This is a point I dispute, but beyond that the arguments used against capital punishment, particularly those in 2267, are poorly conceived.

Answer this: what is the primary objective of all punishment and what obligation does that objective impose?

Ender

Did you even bother to read my previous posts (Post #105 & #106)? I quoted to you from the Encyclicals. Those are not private musings of a pope. So as a Catholic, you have NO room to throw them away as ‘‘prudential rhetoric’’. It also answers your question at the end of your Post as to what purpose punishment serves.

It appears to me that you are quick to dismiss things as being private musings when they are clearly not WHILE quick to embrace things which are indeed private musings when it supports your view.

I am afraid this says that you are really picking and choosing what you want to believe. That is not what we Catholics are called to do.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

Did you even bother to read my previous posts (Post #105 & #106)? I quoted to you from the Encyclicals. Those are not private musings of a pope. So as a Catholic, you have NO room to throw them away as ‘‘prudential rhetoric’’. It also answers your question at the end of your Post as to what purpose punishment serves.

That 2267 / EV 56 are prudential is explicitly stated by Cardinal Dulles and directly implied by Cardinal Ratzinger and the USCCB. I’m doing nothing more than agreeing with them. As I pointed out before, there is simply no other way to understand the comment about the capabilities of modern penal systems. That is as much a prudential opinion as estimating the capabilities of a fire department.

It appears to me that you are quick to dismiss things as being private musings when they are clearly not WHILE quick to embrace things which are indeed private musings when it supports your view.

If that’s how it appears to you then you need to read more since everything the Church has written on the subject prior to 1995 supports my position - which is nothing more than the Church’s traditional teaching.

Ender

 

[SouthpawLink]

Ender,
You’ve done a fine job in defending the “traditional Catholic doctrine” (as if there were any other!) in this thread.

Allow me to quote what previous popes have said on this issue:

“It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rom. 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority” (Pope St. Innocent I, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum,
20 February 405: P.L. 20, 495).

“The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude” (Pope Innocent III, Profession of Faith ‘Fitts Exemplo’, 18 December 1208: Denz. 425/Denz.-Schon. 795).

“Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause, to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense” (Pope Leo XIII, Pastoralis Offici, n. 2; 12 September 1891).

“Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life” (Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952: Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XIV, 328).

That last line of Pope Pius XII bears repeating: “He, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”

 

[SouthpawLink]

One more thing:

“Pius XII however rejected that view [that Rom. 13:4 was “the product of a past set of historical circumstances”], in a speech to Catholic jurists on 5 February 1955, and said the passage of St. Paul was of permanent and universal value, because it refers to the essential foundation of penal authority and to its inherent purpose” (Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century, p. 432).

See also:

catholicpamphlets.net/pamphlets/CAPITAL%20PUNISHMENT.pdf

catholicexchange.com/2004/01/10/93669/

 

[ddarko]

That 2267 / EV 56 are prudential is explicitly stated by Cardinal Dulles and directly implied by Cardinal Ratzinger and the USCCB. I’m doing nothing more than agreeing with them. As I pointed out before, there is simply no other way to understand the comment about the capabilities of modern penal systems. That is as much a prudential opinion as estimating the capabilities of a fire department.

If that’s how it appears to you then you need to read more since everything the Church has written on the subject prior to 1995 supports my position - which is nothing more than the Church’s traditional teaching.

Ender

Wow. I am just going to bow out of this conversation before I really end up saying something I regret.

YOU want to believe YOUR belief when in the ENCYCLICAL it clearly states otherwise. It says that TODAY there is NO need for the Death Penalty. How much more clearly does it need to tell you? That is not an opinion. IT is a CONCLUSION.

TODAY, **there is no REASON to use the Death penalty. So if you are a proponent, you are very mislead. Learn to love. **

Your position is based on QUOTES from random occasions. Those are not Infallible OR teachings for that matter.

And to think I used to wonder how Pro-choice people could think they are FAITHFUL Catholics.

Sheesh, what a disappointment.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

One more thing:

“Pius XII however rejected that view [that Rom. 13:4 was “the product of a past set of historical circumstances”], in a speech to Catholic jurists on 5 February 1955, and said the passage of St. Paul was of permanent and universal value, because it refers to the essential foundation of penal authority and to its inherent purpose” (Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century, p. 432).

See also:

catholicpamphlets.net/pamphlets/CAPITAL%20PUNISHMENT.pdf

catholicexchange.com/2004/01/10/93669/

Please read my Post 106.

The problem with you, Ender and a lot more people on this CAF forums seem to be that they just take a bunch of quotes in favor of their position and forget the opposite position. As I showed in my post, the Good Pope JPII clearly states in the Evangelium Vitae that death penalty has no reason to be practiced anymore.

Now the idiotic thing to do when you hear this is to shove back some quotes in my face.

The bright and intelligent thing to do is to see how you can reconcile WHAT YOU have with what the Pope said. Obviously, Pope’s can’t contradict each other. Instead, you just IGNORE whats to the contrary as “Prudential Rhetoric”.

How can you expect to be Catholic if you are not even humble enough to consider that your position is wrong?

God Bless

 

[SouthpawLink]

Please read my Post 106.

The problem with you, Ender and a lot more people on this CAF forums seem to be that they just take a bunch of quotes in favor of their position and forget the opposite position. As I showed in my post, the Good Pope JPII clearly states in the Evangelium Vitae that death penalty has no reason to be practiced anymore.

Now the idiotic thing to do when you hear this is to shove back some quotes in my face.

The bright and intelligent thing to do is to see how you can reconcile WHAT YOU have with what the Pope said. Obviously, Pope’s can’t contradict each other. Instead, you just IGNORE whats to the contrary as “Prudential Rhetoric”.

How can you expect to be Catholic if you are not even humble enough to consider that your position is wrong?

God Bless

Popes cannot infallibly contradict one another. Luckily, Pope John Paul II didn’t infallibly declare capital punishment to be intrinsically evil, otherwise we’d have a problem on our hands (that which is intrinsically evil cannot be permitted, sanctioned or even commanded by God).

Even the new Catechism states that the allowance of capital punishment is the “traditional teaching of the Church” (n. 2267). The Roman pontiffs are not free to change doctrines at their whim, but they must instead zealously guard the deposit of faith.

Finally, that Pope John Paul II believes that it is not useful for States to make use of capital punishment anymore – “except… when it would not be otherwise possible to defend society” – is his personal opinion* (and one in which I think contradicts what was said by Pope Pius XII, regarding the primary aspect of punishment, which is retribution, and which is repeated in the Catechism, n. 2266). Moreover, Pope John Paul II’s opinion does not, nor can it, negate the actual doctrine of the Church, which clearly teaches that States have the right to use the death penalty as punishment for certain crimes committed (see the CatholicExchange article I linked to earlier).

And again, then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that we were free to continue to support the death penalty. See especially: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

*Pope Pius XII stated that retribution, which is the primary purpose of punishment and which is connected with the “coercive power of legitimate human authority,” has “a general and abiding validity,” and that this is supported by “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine” (Address of 5 February 1955, A.A.S., XLVII, 81).

 

[ddarko]

Popes cannot infallibly contradict one another. Luckily, Pope John Paul II didn’t infallibly declare capital punishment to be intrinsically evil, otherwise we’d have a problem on our hands (that which is intrinsically evil cannot be permitted, sanctioned or even commanded by God).

Even the new Catechism states that the allowance of capital punishment is the “traditional teaching of the Church” (n. 2267). The Roman pontiffs are not free to change doctrines at their whim, but they must instead zealously guard the deposit of faith.

Finally, that Pope John Paul II believes that it is not useful for States to make use of capital punishment anymore – “except… when it would not be otherwise possible to defend society” – is his personal opinion* (and one in which I think contradicts what was said by Pope Pius XII, regarding the primary aspect of punishment, which is retribution, and which is repeated in the Catechism, n. 2266). Moreover, Pope John Paul II’s opinion does not, nor can it, negate the actual doctrine of the Church, which clearly teaches that States have the right to use the death penalty as punishment for certain crimes committed (see the CatholicExchange article I linked to earlier).

And again, then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that we were free to continue to support the death penalty. See especially: catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

*Pope Pius XII stated that retribution, which is the primary purpose of punishment and which is connected with the “coercive power of legitimate human authority,” has “a general and abiding validity,” and that this is supported by “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine” (Address of 5 February 1955, A.A.S., XLVII, 81).

Ok first, I am not here to say that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. I am saying under current circumstances, there is no valid reason to execute someone that way for a crime. Therefore it is not a loving act.

As for the memorandum you cite, that simply states that the death penalty is not in the same level as Abortion which is an intrinsic evil. However, it in NO WAY says that the death penalty is fine and dandy. If it does, I have bigger issues with the Vatican for trying to actively abolish it in other countries like mine. Thank fully though, I am sure that is not the case. The death penalty being practiced by the US for an example DOES state something about its mentality. It is promoting a culture of death nevertheless. This is what JPII was getting at in his encyclical.

I too think the Popes do not contradict. But I reconcile these differences as the Vatican realizing that given the times we live in, there is really no need to execute someone in order to make him unable to harm others. Our penal system is advanced enough. That is not contradicting any thing that has been said before. It is simply being non-ignorant to the time we live in and putting the PERSON first.

Now I can see a third world country still making the excuse that it does not have sufficient means or a good penal system. But the US??? That is unacceptable. Add to this the fact that other countries have successfully abolished the death penalty and you should the problem I have with someone who insists that they are very loving Christians while supporting the death penalty.

God Bless