Is it licit to support the death penalty

[dudleysharp]

Development can never be a contradiction, but only something more. The Catholic Church never promoted slavery. It accepted its existence but as far back as St. Aquinas spoke against it.

I thought that was the case but I had never researched the topic.

 

[Ender]

The churche’s current teaching on the death penalty is part of the authentic magisterium. Ender - I find it so silly you won’t accept this.

If I was the only one claiming that section 2267 was prudential and not doctrinal you might have a point, but I am far from alone in stating this. There have been numerous references to the comments of Cardinal Ratzinger and I have cited comments from Cardinal Dulles and the USCCB making the same point. Beyond all of this, however, is the logic of the argument and the words in 2267. There is no reasonable argument that supports the idea that an estimation of the penal capabilities of modern societies is doctrine.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

In the US, as just one example, it appears that some 28,0000 ADDITIONAL innocents have been murdered by those murderers who had murdered, before - recidivist murderers, just since 1973.

Obviously, intended to be 28,000 not 28,000"0"

 

[dudleysharp]

The churches teaching on the death penalty is definitely of the authentic magisterium. The church has the authority and the duty to comment in a non-infallible way on the use of the death penalty. The use of the death penalty is undisputedly an area of faith and morals.

No one has disputed that it is part of the magisterium.

These post 1995 teachings have never been non-fallible and there is no Church authority that says they are.

They are, in fact, a wrongly considered prudential judgement, where the facts conflict with the Church’s conclusion. Multiple Church sources have confirmed that any good Catholic may disagree with the post 1995 teachings and remain a Catholic in good standing.

If you look at the foundation, “defense of society”, that becomes clear.

Defense of society is based upon secular systems of ever changing criminal justice policies, worldwide, with wildly divergent degrees of success and failure in protecting innocents from unjust aggressors.

How could any Church teaching, based on that amorphous a foundation, ever be non-fallible? I don’t see that it can be.

Aren’t all Church teachings based in morals and faith, ultimately, if not clearly?