Forgiveness and Executions

[Ender]

Encyclical teachings are prudential?

That’s not at all what I said; I think you can do better than this. The question is whether EV #56 and CCC 2267 contain prudential opinion and without doubt both do. You might fairly ask whether all of 2267 is prudential or is some of it doctrinal, but it should be reasonably clear from Cardinal Dulles’ comment that he considers it all prudential. Nor is Dulles alone in giving this impression as Cardinal Ratzinger stated in 2004 that Catholics could legitimately have “a diversity of opinion” on this subject and even the USCCB (2005) stated that “People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue.” Really, it isn’t reasonable to believe they could be discussing doctrine and make a statement like that.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What’s wrong with justice?

This is the right question to ask - it’s the elephant in the living room that somehow gets completely overlooked and ignored whenever this topic is raised. The Church acknowledges four valid objectives of punishment, but the primary one is retribution. It is a debt that justice demands. We may talk of protecting society from future crimes but the punishment a criminal deserves is based on the severity of the crime he has already committed and a punishment is unjust that is either too harsh or too lenient. The Church, in accepting that capital punishment may be used, has acknowledged that it is not too harsh. She has already (and for 2000 years) judged it to be a just punishment for (at least) the crime of murder.

Ender

 

[Joe_Hill]

That’s not at all what I said; I think you can do better than this

I am sorry if I misunderstood.

. The question is whether EV #56 and CCC 2267 contain prudential opinion and without doubt both do.

Okay, now I am confused about your point again

 

[Ender]

Okay, now I am confused about your point again

The teaching of the Church for 2000 years is that the State has the moral right to employ capital punishment. CCC 2267 (based on EV #56) states that unless the death penalty is necessary to defend society against future crimes, it is not proper to use it and the question is: is that statement doctrinal or prudential? If it is a prudential opinion (the application of doctrine to particular circumstances) then, while the opinion must be given serious consideration, we have no moral obligation to assent to it. If it is doctrine, however, our assent is obligatory. So, which is it? Based on the comments of Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and a document from the USCCB it seems clear (to me) that it is prudential. It isn’t accurate to say that encyclicals are either statements of doctrine or opinion; they are mixtures of both.

Ender

 

[Joe_Hill]

The teaching of the Church for 2000 years is that the State has the moral right to employ capital punishment. CCC 2267 (based on EV #56) states that unless the death penalty is necessary to defend society against future crimes, it is not proper to use it and the question is: is that statement doctrinal or prudential? If it is a prudential opinion (the application of doctrine to particular circumstances) then, while the opinion must be given serious consideration, we have no moral obligation to assent to it. If it is doctrine, however, our assent is obligatory. So, which is it? Based on the comments of Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and a document from the USCCB it seems clear (to me) that it is prudential. It isn’t accurate to say that encyclicals are either statements of doctrine or opinion; they are mixtures of both.

Ender

By that logic, the Ho;y Father is contaveniong doctrine by campaiging for an end to capital punishment.

I reject that.

I trust the Pope’s knowledge of what is and what is not the teaching of the church over that of a lay man (with all due respect).

Peace.

 

[Joe_Hill]

The teaching of the Church for 2000 years is that the State has the moral right to employ capital punishment. CCC 2267 (based on EV #56) states that unless the death penalty is necessary to defend society against future crimes, it is not proper to use it and the question is: is that statement doctrinal or prudential? If it is a prudential opinion (the application of doctrine to particular circumstances) then, while the opinion must be given serious consideration, we have no moral obligation to assent to it. If it is doctrine, however, our assent is obligatory. So, which is it? Based on the comments of Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and a document from the USCCB it seems clear (to me) that it is prudential. It isn’t accurate to say that encyclicals are either statements of doctrine or opinion; they are mixtures of both.

Ender

By that logic, the Holy Father is contradicting doctrine by campaiging for an end to capital punishment.

I cannot accept that.

I trust the Pope’s knowledge of what is and what is not the teaching of the church over that of a lay man (with all due respect).

Peace.

 

[Nate13]

By that logic, the Holy Father is contradicting doctrine by campaiging for an end to capital punishment.

I cannot accept that.

I trust the Pope’s knowledge of what is and what is not the teaching of the church over that of a lay man (with all due respect).

Peace.

If it is a prudential opinion (the application of doctrine to particular circumstances) then, while the opinion must be given serious consideration

The Holy Father was not contradicting doctrine. He was offering his opinion (which we should take seriously) as to how the doctrine should be applied in today’s world given the circumstances. He basically said he thought there were better routes society could go other than capital punishment to achieve justice. That was the Holy Father’s opinion based on what he sees in society. He has never said capital punishment is an unjust punishment for 1st degree murder though.

 

[Ender]

By that logic, the Ho;y Father is contaveniong doctrine by campaiging for an end to capital punishment.

No, the Church has always allowed for practical exceptions. He’s saying that, given the Culture of Death that infects modern societies, it would be better not to employ capital punishment. It is his prudential opinion that it causes more problems than it solves. That isn’t a doctrinal statement, it is a practical one.

Our Lord forbids the uprooting of the cockle, when there is fear lest the wheat be uprooted together with it. But sometimes the wicked can be uprooted by death, not only without danger, but even with great profit, to the good. Wherefore in such a case the punishment of death may be inflicted on sinners. (Aquinas, ST, II-II 108, 3 ad 1)

I trust the Pope’s knowledge of what is and what is not the teaching of the church over that of a lay man (with all due respect).

I wouldn’t expect you to take my opinion on the matter, that’s why I cited the opinions of Cardinals Ratzinger and Dulles and the USCCB.

Ender

 

[Geist]

Fortunately, the Church gives us clear guidance on this topic.

The holy father is campagining right now to have capital punishment abolished.

I feel I should support him in my small way.

Our “justice” in the UK, like the US, has devolved into renditions in secret, assasinations without trial, public executions on a global level, torture and desecration of the dead,

That is where we have come.

I pray that the Church can show us just how far we have sunk.

This is what I’m talking about, what gives him the right to do so? How can a totally unrelated third party demand anything?

Its worth pointing out most of the world isn’t Catholic, and even amongst US Catholics 68% support the death penalty, from an article I saw in the Catholic Virginian.

How does the church thus morally justify “butting in” in an age of secular government?

To make it clear, I am not saying the Church cannot hold its views, but why does it actively lobby them? I would be furious in the hypothetical example I posted.