For Supporters of Capital Punishment

[SouthpawLink]

ddarko,
If the criminal WILLINGLY accepts his punishment, then it can have the value of expiation. I think we can both agree on this point.

The death penalty can rehabiliate the criminal if he repents of his sins before he is executed. But this is on the part of the individual criminal: some make the choice to repent, while others do not; it’s up to them to respond to God’s grace. Life imprisonment does not guarantee that all will repent before their death.

I did not mean to assume that capital punishment always has the value of expiation. My apologies if I came across as holding that position.

I agree that the current Pontiffs have tried to abolish the death penalty; I disagree with their attempts at doing so. I also disagree that what Ven. Pius said back in 1952-55 does not or cannot apply to modern times (a mere 55+ years later).

Ok this is almost heretical talk.

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that life imprisonment does not guarantee that the criminal will not or cannot sin any longer because you previously said, “We can stop them from sinning AND give them a punishment.” People most certainly can – and do – still sin while serving life sentences. Not only that, but they can still sin mortally, and as I said earlier, there is no guarantee that a life sentence will eventually bring them to repentance.

You said that, “the death penalty in todays world is certainly immoral.” While yes, “human actions are good or evil according to circumstances” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 18, art. 3), I disagree that today’s circumstances make it immoral. Only six years ago, former Cardinal Ratzinger said:

“While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment” (Worthiness to Receive Communion, n. 3; July 2004).

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Now the more I talk with you, I get the vibe that you have both of the above. My goal is to try and make you see the value of human life.

My goal is to defend Catholic doctrine that remained unchanged at least until 1969 (when Vatican City abolished the death penalty in its territory). Moreover, the death penalty does not devalue human life, as so excellently articulated by Romano Amerio.

As for us being a people of love and not of the law, first, the Old Testament is Scripture and retains its validity (even though the ceremonial and dietary laws have been revoked by Christ) as a source of revelation (in fact, the new Catechism quotes Gen. 9:6). Second, and quite notably, St. Paul did not disprove of or condemn the death penalty, but rather he supported it (cf. Rom. 13:4). The Roman Catechism, the first universal catechism of the Church, also upheld capital punishment. Your appeal to love does not negate the permanent validity of the state’s right to justly use the death penalty.

God bless!

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,
If the criminal WILLINGLY accepts his punishment, then it can have the value of expiation. I think we can both agree on this point.

The death penalty can rehabiliate the criminal if he repents of his sins before he is executed. But this is on the part of the individual criminal: some make the choice to repent, while others do not; it’s up to them to respond to God’s grace. Life imprisonment does not guarantee that all will repent before their death.

I did not mean to assume that capital punishment always has the value of expiation. My apologies if I came across as holding that position.

I agree that the current Pontiffs have tried to abolish the death penalty; I disagree with their attempts at doing so. I also disagree that what Ven. Pius said back in 1952-55 does not or cannot apply to modern times (a mere 55+ years later).

Once again, this alone should stand against your support for the death penalty.

If we cannot guarantee that the criminal repents, would you not agree that given we can keep them safe from committing the same offence again, we should let them live so that they might repent at a later time?

Christ does not want us to avenge Justice for God. As I said, if this were the case, then we would be too busy avenging justice on each other. Punishment for disobeying God after all is… death.

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that life imprisonment does not guarantee that the criminal will not or cannot sin any longer because you previously said, “We can stop them from sinning AND give them a punishment.” People most certainly can – and do – still sin while serving life sentences. Not only that, but they can still sin mortally, and as I said earlier, there is no guarantee that a life sentence will eventually bring them to repentance.

Oh ok, I see the context you said it in.

Now even though there is no guarantee, we are called to do all we can. Take evangelization for an example.
Do you give up saying, there is a chance that the person might not believe in Christ anyways, so lets not evangelize?
So why do you give up in trying to answer the call of Christ to bring your brothers/sisters to repentance for their heinous crimes?

You said that, “the death penalty in todays world is certainly immoral.” While yes, “human actions are good or evil according to circumstances” (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 18, art. 3), I disagree that today’s circumstances make it immoral. Only six years ago, former Cardinal Ratzinger said:

“While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment” (Worthiness to Receive Communion, n. 3; July 2004).

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Ok you have to be careful here. This a very specific case. Capital Punishment as I said is neither moral nor immoral. And certainly, many countries cannot guarantee safety from a criminal X to society. In this case, yes by all means, the person might have to be put to death in order to safeguard rest of society. But in the US, this is not the case.

My goal is to defend Catholic doctrine that remained unchanged at least until 1969 (when Vatican City abolished the death penalty in its territory). Moreover, the death penalty does not devalue human life, as so excellently articulated by Romano Amerio.

Well remember, your goal should be defend entire Catholic doctrine. Not just up to a certain point.

As for us being a people of love and not of the law, first, the Old Testament is Scripture and retains its validity (even though the ceremonial and dietary laws have been revoked by Christ) as a source of revelation (in fact, the new Catechism quotes Gen. 9:6). Second, and quite notably, St. Paul did not disprove of or condemn the death penalty, but rather he supported it (cf. Rom. 13:4). The Roman Catechism, the first universal catechism of the Church, also upheld capital punishment. Your appeal to love does not negate the permanent validity of the state’s right to justly use the death penalty.

Aah, once again, this is why I ask you to defend the entire Catholic faith and not just parts of it.

You are certainly accurate with what you say above. BUT, lets take the OT laws for an example. There was stoning to death for adultery. Do you still think it permissible to do that? Why not?

So I think what you have to do is understand everything in terms of Love. God is Love. That was the message of Christ.

In this sense, you are not called to look at taking revenge from the criminal. You are to look at trying to repair the damage he did and possibly inflicting a punishment on him so that he corrects his ways and repents. That is the key for us as Catholics. I am not saying “Love your enemy” as in go kiss the criminal and say everything is alright, go free. He/she certainly deserves punishment. But it should stay true to our main goal. LOVE.

God Bless

 

[SouthpawLink]

ddarko,
I am not opposed to life imprisonment in principle, but I do not agree that it is necessarily a better or even more humane punishment.

Criminals do have access to chaplains while in prison, so it’s not as though the death penalty somehow prevents them from repentance.

I did not see then-Cardinal Ratzinger say that only those countries which cannot guarantee the public’s safey may have recourse to the death penalty, and again, that is not the only or even the primary reason for using it. The point made in the CCC (n. 2267) is moot.

The entire Catholic doctrine is that the state does have – and today retains – the right to make use of the death penalty. I have not contradicted it.

No, I do not think adultery needs to be punished with death, although I would agree with some form of punishment (in a Catholic society).

Once more, I do not think that capital punishment is opposed to love (because no evil is willed towards the criminal; the end of his life, yes, but not without just cause), and again, I’m not completely opposed to life imprisonment, but neither do I think that life imprisonment is superior to capital punishment.

God bless!

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,
I am not opposed to life imprisonment in principle, but I do not agree that it is necessarily a better or even more humane punishment.

Criminals do have access to chaplains while in prison, so it’s not as though the death penalty somehow prevents them from repentance.

I did not see then-Cardinal Ratzinger say that only those countries which cannot guarantee the public’s safey may have recourse to the death penalty, and again, that is not the only or even the primary reason for using it. The point made in the CCC (n. 2267) is moot.

The entire Catholic doctrine is that the state does have – and today retains – the right to make use of the death penalty. I have not contradicted it.

No, I do not think adultery needs to be punished with death, although I would agree with some form of punishment (in a Catholic society).

Once more, I do not think that capital punishment is opposed to love (because no evil is willed towards the criminal; the end of his life, yes, but not without just cause), and again, I’m not completely opposed to life imprisonment, but neither do I think that life imprisonment is superior to capital punishment.

God bless!

Ok since you agree that life imprisonment is valid. Lets take a look at why you should prefer that over the death penalty and focus our discussion on that.

The reason is as follows.

Did not Christ show us how much he values his lost sheep? Did he say he delights when one of these sheep gets given justice OR did he say he rejoices in finding it?

Now from the death penalty, you put the person to death. While he has access to a chaplain, repentance does not happen in a day or two. Think about it, how many things (not crimes of course ) do you regret in your life after a long time from the event? I know there are some things in my life that I think I should have not done and would if given the chance, apologize for those I hurt. Same with criminals. Time is always a great healer and helps people mature. Especially given good spiritual counseling.

So I think given the above, if we are to truly embrace the entire Gospel of Christ, we as loving Christians should be of the motive to make the person repent. Not end his life. It only takes a moment to pull the switch and take away the life. But if that person lived, he could touch the countless lives of many through his repentance. The same principle as evangelizing applies here. We do not know if the other person will convert. But we do know that if they DO, God will be pleased and that alone should bring joy to our hearts.

This is what JP II was getting at. In life imprisonment, you put the person first. You truly love him/her and you truly want them to be saved. It is NOT just retribution anymore. Even retribution is directed to make the criminal correct his ways because you love him/her. Thus even the ends of our actions becomes the salvation of that person.

I think therefore that life imprisonment is a more complete expression of Christian love.

God Bless

 

[jantoniello]

Joseph, I think the recent California Bishop’s statement informs you that you are on the wrong side of where the Church is headed on this issue. The Divine Mercy of God is moving us towards seeing the face of Christ on EVERYONE. Most people who support the Death Penalty will never pull the switch themselves. Most people who now support the death penalty would desire the opposite for themselves if they were to fall into such a sin that society says demands it. If you want to know what the death penalty looks like just look to Jesus on the Cross.

Mr. Gray, let me first apologize for not responding in a timely fashion. School got hectic, and then I forgot. So, my apologies.

The Church’s stance on capital punishment is one that is open to conjecture. As the Holy Father said as Cardinal in his memo Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty…” This is just one of those topics that will never have an ending of discussion. One can be for or against. It is one of the few beliefs of the Church that allows for this argumentation.

Seeing the face of Christ in everyone is obvious; this is a truly humanist approach. We were all made in the image and likeness of God. Christ shared in our humanity, and as you yourself have pointed out, Christ died on the Cross.

Was it an awful pain? Very much so.
Was it necessary? Yes.

Christ’s death by a public capital punishment was one that was necessary, and it showed the Divine Justice of God. Too much focus is shown on an illegitimate view of the Divine Mercy; this view often does not take into account that even in His mercy God allows sin to happen, and as a result of that sin, people damn themselves to Hell. That is the unity of the Mercy and Justice of God.

Pax et bonum,
Joseph

 

[Ender]

Too much focus is shown on an illegitimate view of the Divine Mercy; this view often does not take into account that even in His mercy God allows sin to happen, and as a result of that sin, people damn themselves to Hell. That is the unity of the Mercy and Justice of God.

I agree with you on this point. It certainly appears that we care too much for mercy and too little for justice.

God showed how unwillingly he punishes even the worst of sinners, when he said that the cry of Sodom ascended to him. That is to say: “My mercy indeed persuades me to spare them; nevertheless the cry of their sins compels me to punish.”* For that he so long delayed their punishment was due to his mercy; that he finally punished them, to his justice.* (Salvian)

Ender

 

[ddarko]

I agree with you on this point. It certainly appears that we care too much for mercy and too little for justice.

God showed how unwillingly he punishes even the worst of sinners, when he said that the cry of Sodom ascended to him. That is to say: “My mercy indeed persuades me to spare them; nevertheless the cry of their sins compels me to punish.”* For that he so long delayed their punishment was due to his mercy; that he finally punished them, to his justice.* (Salvian)

Ender

Some of the stuff you say can’t help but make me want to reply to you for fear of you misleading others.

We are not GOD to give justice to people. What are you going to propose next? Genocide in the name of Justice is OK because God was OK with that kind of stuff in the OT?

God is compassionate. What do you think God did to King David for his murder and adultery combo? Someone during that time should have stepped and given King David the capital punishment for his heinous acts. But what happened instead? According to you, God can’t even hold up his own standards of justice. How do you not even see the problems with your own position? You are making a mess out of theology and how we interpret the Bible. Next you are going to say lets put someone related to the criminal to death

I don’t mean to disagree that punishment is not important but I just wanted to point out (Like I’ve been doing all of last week) the folly in your arguments to support death penalty like its an obligation to give that punishment. While a punishment may be an obligation, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT is NOT.

So stop quoting bits and pieces of the Bible. Your conclusions are way off the mark. Try to read what the Bible tells you than try to confirm your own positions.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

We are not GOD to give justice to people.

Given that justice is one of the cardinal virtues, and the mother of all virtues, I should think you would hold it in higher esteem. Yes, a just society is one which treats its citizens justly. Surely you can’t believe that it is improper to be just or that justice is not something about which we should be concerned.

God is compassionate.

Yes he is, but you don’t seem to understand that compassion and punishment are not mutually exclusive, nor could they be since God also punishes.

What do you think God did to King David for his murder and adultery combo? Someone during that time should have stepped and given King David the capital punishment for his heinous acts.

It has never been my position that every act of murder deserves death. It is my position, however, that execution is an acceptable and at times necessary form of punishment.

While a punishment may be an obligation, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT is NOT.

Really? The Catechism in 2260 seems to imply that it can be.

So stop quoting bits and pieces of the Bible. Your conclusions are way off the mark. Try to read what the Bible tells you than try to confirm your own positions.

Actually what I quote is the Church quoting the Bible. When I cite Gen 9:6 it is because that is the verse the Church quotes - as she does not just in the current Catechism but in the Catechism of Trent as well. The difference between our citations of scripture is that yours come with your personal interpretations and mine come with the interpretation the Church gives them.

Ender

 

[SouthpawLink]

ddarko,
Several months, if not a year or more, pass between a criminal’s act of murder and his execution. So it is not as though he’s only given one or two days to repent of his grave sin.

Finding the lost sheep refers to repentance. There is no dichotomy between repentance (which is on the part of the criminal) and receiving justice (given by the legitimate authority).

Embracing the entire Gospel of Christ does necessitate a rejection of the death penalty; otherwise, we’d have to convict the Church of abandoning the Gospel when many Fathers, Doctors and Pontiffs accepted the use of capital punishment. Moreover, a criminal could touch the lives of others with his repentance, or he could continue his life of sin until his death in prison – neither is certain. The state could sometimes give a lesser sentence than what the criminal deserves, but this need not always be so.

Finally, and once again, the death penalty is not opposed to love, because it is an act of justice, and the virtues aren’t opposed to one another. The death penalty does not prevent a man from becoming repentant or attaining salvation, just as a life sentence does not guarantee repentance or final conversion.

 

[ddarko]

Actually what I quote is the Church quoting the Bible. When I cite Gen 9:6 it is because that is the verse the Church quotes - as she does not just in the current Catechism but in the Catechism of Trent as well. The difference between our citations of scripture is that yours come with your personal interpretations and mine come with the interpretation the Church gives them.

Ender

No offence but the difference between yours and mine is that you like to extract bits and pieces that make your case. Oh and you like to quote non-Infallible quotes of Pope’s and Bishops. Thats all very sad in my opinion and I am happy at least that you are not pro-contraception. It would have been insanely difficult for me or anyone to convince you as wrong because of your self confirming approach.

I like to look at the entirety of Scripture and Tradition and the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Not pick and choose like you do.

That is the difference between you and me and NOTHING else.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

ddarko,
Several months, if not a year or more, pass between a criminal’s act of murder and his execution. So it is not as though he’s only given one or two days to repent of his grave sin.

Ok I was expecting you to be able to answer something like that yourself. The point is that TIME does play a role. As long as you admit that, there is an obligation to give as MUCH time as possible with the hope of repentance.

Since you have admitted that time DOES indeed play a role, you really can’t say ‘this much is enough’. Thats not yours to choose.

Finding the lost sheep refers to repentance. There is no dichotomy between repentance (which is on the part of the criminal) and receiving justice (given by the legitimate authority).

No there is not. I am merely reminding you that there are TWO obligations. One to give justice and another to give a chance to repent.

Embracing the entire Gospel of Christ does necessitate a rejection of the death penalty; otherwise, we’d have to convict the Church of abandoning the Gospel when many Fathers, Doctors and Pontiffs accepted the use of capital punishment. Moreover, a criminal could touch the lives of others with his repentance, or he could continue his life of sin until his death in prison – neither is certain. The state could sometimes give a lesser sentence than what the criminal deserves, but this need not always be so.

Once again, I have already shown to you why uncertainty of repentance is irrelevant to giving time to repent. Do you not evangelize to everyone? Under your view, we should just give up because there is no certainty that they would convert.

Finally, and once again, the death penalty is not opposed to love, because it is an act of justice, and the virtues aren’t opposed to one another. The death penalty does not prevent a man from becoming repentant or attaining salvation, just as a life sentence does not guarantee repentance or final conversion.

NO IT IS opposed to love. In Todays world it is opposed to it. There is NO reason to put someone to death and DAMN their souls when we could have let them repent.

And stop playing that uncertainty argument. It’s illogical when you are willing to evangelize with uncertainty but you can’t keep a person in prison till he repents. Thats not love, thats hypocrisy.

If you think the death penalty is LOVE in todays world you are no worse off than people who think blowing them selves up for God is LOVE.

God Bless

 

[Ender]

No offence but the difference between yours and mine is that you like to extract bits and pieces that make your case.

“Bits and pieces” … is that how you dismiss 2000 years of Church comments on the subject?

Oh and you like to quote non-Infallible quotes of Pope’s and Bishops.

Well, yes. Given that much of what the Church teaches is not infallible that does seem appropriate.

I like to look at the entirety of Scripture and Tradition and the infallible teachings of the Catholic Church. Not pick and choose like you do.

Not exactly. You cite one section each out of two documents that say the same thing and dismiss everything else, and your scripture citations come with your personal interpretation and no citations at all. If your intent is to limit the debate to infallible teachings only then you cannot cite either Evangelium Vitae or the Catechism since their entire contents are not deemed infallible. On the other hand, if you want to cite Church teaching whether infallible or not then that lets in all the citations I have given. I’m not sure how you justify excluding all Church teaching not deemed infallible. Can you cite the infallible document stating that this is appropriate?

Ender

 

[Ender]

The point is that TIME does play a role. As long as you admit that, there is an obligation to give as MUCH time as possible with the hope of repentance.

Citation please - where does the Church teach this? If you consider it unjust to deliberately cut someone’s life short do you consider God unjust for allowing people’s lives to be taken early?

Since you have admitted that time DOES indeed play a role, you really can’t say ‘this much is enough’. Thats not yours to choose.

Citation please. Since the Church has always taught that the State can use capital punishment she has clearly taught that cutting someone’s life short is not immoral.

I am merely reminding you that there are TWO obligations. One to give justice and another to give a chance to repent.

Citation please. Where does the Church teach that ‘giving someone a chance to repent’ means they must be allowed to die of old age?

NO IT IS opposed to love. In Todays world it is opposed to it.

How could it be opposed to love today but not opposed to it for the previous 2000 years when the Church supported it? If it wasn’t opposed to love then it isn’t opposed to love now.

There is NO reason to put someone to death and DAMN their souls when we could have let them repent.

Is it your position then that the Church was happy to damn souls to hell for 2000 years and has only rejected that position in the last decade or so? You really don’t seem to recognize the implications of the positions you take.

Ender

 

[ddarko]

How could it be opposed to love today but not opposed to it for the previous 2000 years when the Church supported it?
Ender

Seriously, why can’t you answer simple questions like this yourself? Or do you think its such an intelligent question that its going to turn the tide of this debate by making me look like an idiot?

The reason why it was valid 2000 years ago was that there was no other way to stop a criminal from continuing to hurt society. Not to mention we lacked the means of rehabilitating people as successfully as we do today. So for LOVE of the others who might get HURT, sometimes you had to end the life of that person.

TODAY, that is not the case. Our penal systems are well developed. We have made insane progress in fields of psychology (I am starting to think this is one of your blank sides). So we really CAN take rest of society out of the equation AND concentrate on LOVING the criminal.

This is simple stuff really and I am surprised you HAD to ask me this question. (Not to mention I answered this over and over again)

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Citation please - where does the Church teach this? If you consider it unjust to deliberately cut someone’s life short do you consider God unjust for allowing people’s lives to be taken early?

Citation please. Since the Church has always taught that the State can use capital punishment she has clearly taught that cutting someone’s life short is not immoral.
Citation please. Where does the Church teach that ‘giving someone a chance to repent’ means they must be allowed to die of old age?
How could it be opposed to love today but not opposed to it for the previous 2000 years when the Church supported it? If it wasn’t opposed to love then it isn’t opposed to love now.
Is it your position then that the Church was happy to damn souls to hell for 2000 years and has only rejected that position in the last decade or so? You really don’t seem to recognize the implications of the positions you take.

Ender

Well, this shouldn’t come as much of a surprise from you.

Encyclicals and the Catechism OVERRULE nearly every single one of your quotes. You don’t treat the encyclical with the same weight of a Bishop’s statement or a Pope’s statement in an address.

You can’t even seem to realize that the Vatican is very determined to get rid of Capital Punishment today. It is active in many countries and even in the UN towards abolishing it. According to you, the Church is now starting to err. Because obviously, it is impossible to abolish the death penalty IF it is INDEED church teaching. So the IMPLICATIONS of your position is that the Church has been lead astray. Thats very good Catholic thought you got going there

BUT thankfully, the Ender Church of Catholicism is the one that is WRONG here. The Church was never TEACHING Capital Punishment as an obligation. It was LOVE that it taught (read my above post for more about this).

So I am DEFENDING the essence behind the Church’s support for CAPITAL PUNISHMENT in the old days i.e. LOVE. You are defending CAPITAL PUNISHMENT itself. That’s not what Catholics are called to do.

I can give you a group of people in the Bible who thought and acted EXACTLY like how you propose. They were known as Pharisees (and boy, they loved the LAW) and Jesus had some nice things to say about them. I invite you to read what he had to say

God Bless

 

[SouthpawLink]

ddarko:

The reason why it was valid 2000 years ago was that there was no other way to stop a criminal from continuing to hurt society.

First, the primary aim of punishment is retribution, not the safeguarding of society. Therefore, it is wrong to say that capital punishment is no longer necessary because the safeguarding of society has been achieved by the modern penal system.

Second, both Pope Pius XII (in the 1950s) and the Revised Baltimore Catechism (in 1959) upheld capital punishment at a time when solitary confinement was available as an alternative punishment. Again, the safeguarding of society is not the only valid reason to have recourse to the death penalty.

Third, as recently as 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger upheld the legitimate use of capital punishment – again at a time when solitary confinement was available as an alternative punishment.

Therefore, your points regarding “2,000 years ago” and “safeguarding society” do not support your argument.

Our penal systems are well developed. We have made insane progress in fields of psychology.

If this is true, then why is it that 56% of all violent criminals are repeat offenders?

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4441/is_200609/ai_n17194955/

Encyclicals and the Catechism OVERRULE nearly every single one of your quotes.

You are incorrect. On the contrary, our position stands on the authority of both a profession of faith (proscribed for heretics returning to the Church: see Denz. 425) and the Church’s own previous universal catechism, the Roman Catechism.

Your one encyclical and its being quoted in the new Catechism – which, by the way, upholds the death penalty – is not of greater weight than what we have presented.

The Church was never TEACHING Capital Punishment as an obligation.

The Church did call it an act of paramount obedience to the Fifth Commandment (cf. Roman Catechism, part III, chap. VI), which amounts to calling it a morally good action on the part of the state, as well as hints that it is indeed an obligation.

According to you, the Church is now starting to err.

Yes. Pope John Paul II erroneously stated that the safeguarding of society is the only legitimate reason to make use of capital punishment, contrary to the Church’s own teaching (CCC, n. 2266: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense”).

Furthermore, he also seriously erred by calling capital punishment “cruel and unnecessary,” contrary to the witness of both the Old and New Testaments, as well as the Doctors (Ss. Augustine and Aquinas) and Pontiffs (St. Innocent I, Innocent III, St. Pius V via the Roman Catechism, Leo XIII, Ven. Pius XII) of the Holy Catholic Church.

 

[Ender]

Encyclicals and the Catechism OVERRULE nearly every single one of your quotes. You don’t treat the encyclical with the same weight of a Bishop’s statement or a Pope’s statement in an address.

Earlier you said we should only count infallible statements; have you changed your opinion already? Besides, I have quoted from several catechisms; how is it that the one you cite is the only one that matters? Beyond that, I have quoted the same catechism you quote; why are those citations from the same catechism irrelevant?

You can’t even seem to realize that the Vatican is very determined to get rid of Capital Punishment today. It is active in many countries and even in the UN towards abolishing it.

No, I recognize this. I have never denied the obvious.

According to you, the Church is now starting to err. Because obviously, it is impossible to abolish the death penalty IF it is INDEED church teaching. So the IMPLICATIONS of your position is that the Church has been lead astray.

Let me explain this again. I believe the pope and bishops currently oppose the use of capital punishment on prudential grounds. In that regard, I disagree with them - which, as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, is an acceptable position to hold. I have been discussing the moral basis for its use and in that regard I don’t believe the Church has changed her position.

The Church was never TEACHING Capital Punishment as an obligation.

I’m not sure how else to understand Gen 9:6 or the meaning of this statement from the Catechism of Trent:

*The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, **is an act of **paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. *

How else are we to understand the statement that capital punishment is an act of paramount obedience? Wouldn’t that mean that failure to use that power would be an act of disobedience?

I can give you a group of people in the Bible who thought and acted EXACTLY like how you propose. They were known as Pharisees (and boy, they loved the LAW) and Jesus had some nice things to say about them. I invite you to read what he had to say

Thank you, but I’ve been reading what the Church has to say. Are you suggesting that following the Church’s teaching makes me a Pharisee?

Ender

 

[ddarko]

Yes. Pope John Paul II erroneously stated that the safeguarding of society is the only legitimate reason to make use of capital punishment, contrary to the Church’s own teaching (CCC, n. 2266: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense”).

Alright guys. My theological and philosophical expertise is nowhere even close to JP II’s. If you are saying JP II erred, well… I am too dumb to even understand where you are coming from.

As far as I can see though, you are picking and choosing. The Vatican is engaged in getting Capital Punishment abolished today. They have succeeded in my country and in many others and to me, that is perfectly according to Catholic teaching. I sure hope they succeed in your country as well with God’s grace.

To me, you are starting to look a lot like Pharisees. Obsessed with the LAW and forgetting the essence behind it which is LOVE. Christ didn’t really have kind words to them. But hey, maybe Christ was erring on that too by contradicting a 1500 year old Old Testament Law.

So I for one am unable to argue with two two bright scholars such as you who seem to be much capable than even John Paul II. To me JP II makes perfect sense while you two look like two clueless Catholics who are too misguided by their pro-death penalty upbringing to change their ways.

One good thing that came out of this conversation though is how important a role the society you grow up in plays in shaping ones values. Pro-choice people for an example started off in the wrong place and are too stuck with abortion or contraception just as you two are with the death penalty. I guess it shows how important a role the culture you grow-up in plays later in your life. So I really can’t blame you two either.

In any case, I humbly bow out of this conversation. You two will be in my prayers.

God Bless

 

[SouthpawLink]

ddarko,
I do not see how I am picking and choosing when from the time of the Old Testament (Genesis) all the way up to and including the new Catechism there is support from God and His Church for capital punishment. Just because the Vatican has a policy doesn’t necessarily mean that policy becomes “doctrine.”

If I’m clueless, then the Catholic Church was also “clueless” up until 1995. Moreover, Cardinal Ratzinger must have been “clueless” for saying it’s okay for Catholics to support the death penalty in 2004.

You talk about the role of society rather than the constant and universal teaching of the Church, which itself leans on the teaching of Scripture. My position comes from the Church herself, not what society has to say about the issue (which is itself divided on the issue, just as it is on every issue – there’s seemingly nothing that society can agree on completely). Since I started participating in this thread, I’ve done nothing but cite Church documents to support my position.

My position has absolutely nothing to do with the sad souls who support abortion and contraception. The qualitative difference between them and myself is that my position – support of capital punishment – has always had the support of the Church, whereas their position has always been condemned by her.

I’m also finished with this conversation because we seem to do nothing other than go around in circles.

God bless!

 

[Ender]

As far as I can see though, you are picking and choosing.

That you feel this way is undoubtedly because we have provided citations from 2000 years of Church teaching on this subject that appears to disagree with 2267. At least you recognize that there is a disparity between that section and everything else the Church has taught on the subject. What are we to do when the Church appears to contradict herself; when her position appears to have changed?

It is certainly true that the Church can change her teaching on some topics; that’s why she makes a distinction between infallible and fallible teachings, but I don’t believe this is such a situation. There appear to me to be two choices: either discard pretty much everything the Church has taught about punishment, retribution, justice, and expiation in favor of 2267 or understand 2267 as an expression of JPII’s prudential opinion about using the death penalty in current society.

Given that Cardinals Ratzinger and the USCCB seem to feel that it was his prudential opinion I think I am in company in agreeing with them.

Ender