Korean Church calls for death penalty abolishment

[Ender]

I suggest you contact your bishop and let him know you think the Church teaches error.

This might be a surprise to you but quite a number of them understand the nature of 2267 - that it is prudential opinion, not doctrine, and therefore does not require our assent. This would explain why Cardinal Ratzinger said:

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”

I find it hard to believe we are allowed a diversity of opinion about Church doctrine, and this would also explain why the USCCB only urges discussion for those who disagree with this teaching - an incomprehensible position if they were discussing doctrine:

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue

Nor is there any doubt at all about Cardinal Dulles’ understanding: he explicitly stated that this teaching is prudential opinion.

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.

Condescending remarks don’t camouflage your lack of arguments supporting your position.

Ender

 

[1holycatholic]

This might be a surprise to you but quite a number of them understand the nature of 2267 - that it is prudential opinion, not doctrine, and therefore does not require our assent. This would explain why Cardinal Ratzinger said:

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty”

I’m not disputing that. Cardinal Ratzinger was stating the obvious - the CCC (and the Catechism of Trent) don’t define exact terms for the application of the death penalty i.e. murderers convicted with two or more witnesses to the crime and with corroborating DNA evidence must be out to death if they go on to kill a guard in prison…

Do you have a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger stating that the Church teaches error? That would help your argument.

 

[Hastrman]

Do you have a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger stating that the Church teaches error? That would help your argument.

Actually the statement Ender was mentioning above is one where Ratzinger does not say that the Church teaches error…but he does say that the Church does not teach the death penalty, or war, is wrong. Ever. Essentially, Ratzinger was concerned to say that the Church does not here teach error, because she does not directly teach at all. I said it before and I’ll say it again: the only part of recent papal pronouncements on these matters that can be taken as doctrinally binding, is also frigging obvious: that executing or going to war, unnecessarily, is wrong. That’s not actually a statement that the death penalty is unjustified; it’s just defining an unjustified execution!

Basically the Church teaches that executing/declaring war are wrong if various conditions, like justice, necessity, due authority, etc., are not met. Whether or not those conditions are met, however, is not an area under the Church’s purview, but a matter to be assessed based on things like military intel and crime statistics.

 

[1holycatholic]

Actually the statement Ender was mentioning above is one where Ratzinger does not say that the Church teaches error…but he does say that the Church does not teach the death penalty, or war, is wrong. Ever.

I don’t think anyone was claiming that the Church taught an absolute prohibition of war or the death penalty.

Essentially, Ratzinger was concerned to say that the Church does not here teach error, because she does not directly teach at all. I said it before and I’ll say it again: the only part of recent papal pronouncements on these matters that can be taken as doctrinally binding, is also frigging obvious: that executing or going to war, unnecessarily, is wrong. That’s not actually a statement that the death penalty is unjustified; it’s just defining an unjustified execution!

Basically the Church teaches that executing/declaring war are wrong if various conditions, like justice, necessity, due authority, etc., are not met. Whether or not those conditions are met, however, is not an area under the Church’s purview, but a matter to be assessed based on things like military intel and crime statistics.

That’s not what Ender is claiming. Ender claims the Catechism is in error because it contradicts earlier Church teaching on the matter.

 

[Hastrman]

That’s not what Ender is claiming. Ender claims the Catechism is in error because it contradicts earlier Church teaching on the matter.

That’s not the impression I got, but if so, the same thing goes: the earlier teaching wasn’t actually binding either, except when it stated the principles that should inform policy on the death-penalty. And those principles are the same then as they are now, though I do question recent Popes’ shift of emphasis. But again: emphasis, not teaching.

The Catechism is, in my view, badly-written in spots, though; its discussion of torture doesn’t even mention “gaining information”.

 

[1holycatholic]

That’s not the impression I got, but if so, the same thing goes: the earlier teaching wasn’t actually binding either, except when it stated the principles that should inform policy on the death-penalty. And those principles are the same then as they are now, though I do question recent Popes’ shift of emphasis. But again: emphasis, not teaching.

I agree that the principles haven’t changed. They can’t change.

Regrettably the position put forth in the Catechism (2267) is a mixture of error and opinion and has caused a great deal of confusion about this topic. Hopefully it will be corrected sooner rather than later.

Ender does not agree.

 

[Ender]

That’s not what Ender is claiming. Ender claims the Catechism is in error because it contradicts earlier Church teaching on the matter.

What I have said is that 2267 contains a statement that is incorrect and at least one statement that is opinion. If it was considered doctrine then I think it would be contradictory with not just earlier but also current doctrine, but I agree with Cardinal Dulles that it is only a prudential expression of JPII’s belief that in current society the death penalty does more harm than good. This, by the way, would be a valid reason to forgo using it and it does not challenge existing doctrines.

As to whether there is an error of fact in the Catechism, that is simply undeniable. The Church never had the restriction contained in 2267.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The Church never had the restriction contained in 2267.

Ender

The Church doesn’t say that the death penalty can’t be imposed; we all know that. The point is that today the same attitude needs not be held as that in previous centuries. All felonies then were capital crimes and even though the Church did not decry hanging a man for stealing a pig or a dog, thus upholding the right of the state to put a felon to death, it would prudentially not approve of that today.

The shift of emphasis to protection of society from malfeasants is an appropriate one for the Church to take.

 

[1holycatholic]

What I have said is that 2267 contains a statement that is incorrect

That’s a statement that the Catechism (aka the teaching of the Church) is in error.

No sale.

 

[Ender]

That’s a statement that the Catechism (aka the teaching of the Church) is in error.

Your over generalization notwithstanding, it is a statement of fact that one claim in the Catechism is incorrect. Let me also point out to you that the Catechism is not considered an infallible document so the Church recognizes the possibility that not everything in it can necessarily be considered correct, which is what you’re trying to do.

You are unable to defend the claim 2267 makes or refute my claim that it is incorrect so you bury your head in the mantra “the catechism is right, the catechism is right, …” and simply avoid the facts. The claim made in 2267 is rather widely known to be incorrect and that section is even more widely understood as prudential. The Holy Spirit does not protect opinions from error.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The Church doesn’t say that the death penalty can’t be imposed; we all know that. The point is that today the same attitude needs not be held as that in previous centuries. All felonies then were capital crimes and even though the Church did not decry hanging a man for stealing a pig or a dog, thus upholding the right of the state to put a felon to death, it would prudentially not approve of that today.

It is surely true that capital punishment is no longer even considered for a number of crimes for which it was used in the past, but this doesn’t go to the point of whether it is properly used today for the crime of murder. 2267 effectively bans its use for every crime, and based on what the Church teaches about punishment et al it appears that this is inappropriate. If 2267 is assumed to be a prudential judgment about whether executions are harmful in today’s societies I can accept that position as reasonable - even as I disagree with it, but if 2267 is to be understood as new doctrine then there are all kinds of problems this creates because it is so much at odds not only with what the Church has historically taught but with what she teaches today.

The shift of emphasis to protection of society from malfeasants is an appropriate one for the Church to take.

No, this is something I completely reject. The Church teaches (right there in 2266) that it is retribution (justice) that is the primary objective of punishment so she cannot “shift the emphasis” a mere paragraph later and claim that protection is now more important. That is not a rational position.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

No, this is something I completely reject.

You are free to do so. The Church’s position doesn’t exclude interpretation. Retribution in the form of depriving the murderer of his freedom for the rest of his or her life seems equitable to me. We need not follow the Lex talionis to assure retribution.

 

[Ender]

You are free to do so.

This is a question of being correct or incorrect, not merely of preference, much less of personal interpretation. In 2266 the primary objective of punishment is defined. In 2267 the primary objective of punishment is ignored. That’s a serious problem that can’t be simply dismissed with “whatever.”

The Church’s position doesn’t exclude interpretation.

This is rather vague - the Church has lots of positions and some of them most certainly exclude interpretation.

Retribution in the form of depriving the murderer of his freedom for the rest of his or her life seems equitable to me.

Perhaps to you, but the question is whether that is adequate according to Church doctrine. Societies have sentenced criminals to life in prison for centuries; this is not something new to modern societies but in the past States had always also applied capital punishment with the specific recognition by the Church that this was morally valid. What made it valid before but invalid now? If it was a just punishment in the past it is a just punishment today.

We need not follow the Lex talionis to assure retribution.

Not literally, no, but justice does in fact require that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime and the Church has always based her position on capital punishment on Genesis 9:6 - which specifically states that the life of a murderer is forfeit.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Not literally, no, but justice does in fact require that the severity of the punishment be commensurate with the severity of the crime and the Church has always based her position on capital punishment on Genesis 9:6 - which specifically states that the life of a murderer is forfeit.

If you think you can convince the Church to change its current position, have at it, though I think that you won’t find much support among the hierarchy or the Pope, who are not at all bloodthirsty.

 

[Ender]

If you think you can convince the Church to change its current position, have at it, though I think that you won’t find much support among the hierarchy or the Pope, who are not at all bloodthirsty.

Bloodthirsty? Is that how you describe 2000 years of Church teaching on the use of capital punishment? I’ll point out again, all of my comments are based on historical - and current - Church teaching so if you think it bloodthirsty don’t place that accusation at my door. It is the Church’s teaching, not mine.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Bloodthirsty? Is that how you describe 2000 years of Church teaching on the use of capital punishment? I’ll point out again, all of my comments are based on historical - and current - Church teaching so if you think it bloodthirsty don’t place that accusation at my door. It is the Church’s teaching, not mine.

I said that the present hierarchy and the Pope are not at all bloodthirsty, and the same held true for the 20th century Popes.

I’m also dead certain that no future Pope is going to start calling for more use of the death penalty. The days of hanging men for anything from dog-robbing to murder are over - OVER!

 

[Ender]

I said that the present hierarchy and the Pope are not at all bloodthirsty, and the same held true for the 20th century Popes.

I’m also dead certain that no future Pope is going to start calling for more use of the death penalty. The days of hanging men for anything from dog-robbing to murder are over - OVER!

The question is whether the proper punishment for murder is execution; your dog-robbing allusion is spurious, but I’m still trying to understand your “bloodthirsty” allegation. Is it now your position that all the popes prior to the 20th century were bloodthirsty? Actually, you don’t know their positions very well as Pius XII (1939-1958) was both very outspoken and very clear about the appropriateness of capital punishment and the right of a State to employ it. I think you’ll have to move the time line for the bloodthirsty popes forward to at least 1969 as it wasn’t until then that the Vatican deleted it from their own laws.

More to the point, simply charging that the Church was bloodthirsty until the 20th century is really not much of an argument.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The question is whether the proper punishment for murder is execution; your dog-robbing allusion is spurious,

Not at all. The Church did not contest the right of the state to execute “dog-robbers” nor called for elimination of that penalty for ordinary felonies. The Church has always accepted the state’s perogative to impose that penalty regardless of the crime.

But, the Church modified its stance and no longer would stand by passively if the United States, say, were to start executing burglars or such. Even as they still acknowledge the right to impose the death penalty.

The modification of the Church’s stance into not accepting the death penalty except in extraordinary circumstances and shifting emphasis onto societal protection through incarceration is similar to its change of heart on executing ordinary felons. Retribution is available through incarceration.

It is my deep belief that the Church is not going to come around to your point of view and start calling for more executions. You don’t like that, but I think it will be so from now on. The Church is not going to become an advocate of the death penalty.

 

[Ender]

The Church has always accepted the state’s perogative to impose that penalty regardless of the crime.

I seriously doubt this. The Church has always taught that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and I cannot believe she ever granted carte blanch to States to execute people regardless of the crime. Show us something to support this reckless claim.

The modification of the Church’s stance into not accepting the death penalty except in extraordinary circumstances and shifting emphasis onto societal protection through incarceration is similar to its change of heart on executing ordinary felons.

I pointed out before that there is more involved here than merely a “shifting emphasis”, a vagueness you employ to make your position seem reasonable. The primary objective of punishment is retribution. This is what the Church has always taught and what she teaches today; there has been no shift in that doctrine. Protection is and always has been a secondary objective and, again, there has been no shift in that position either.

Retribution is available through incarceration.

This is the point being discussed, and it isn’t resolved simply through declaration. This also appears to contradict what the Church has traditionally taught and what she (grudgingly) teaches today.

It is my deep belief that the Church is not going to come around to your point of view and start calling for more executions.

You mean you don’t think the bishops will come back to the traditional teaching of the Church. Perhaps not, but until the Church actually repudiates it I see no reason to think it wrong.

Ender

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I seriously doubt this. The Church has always taught that the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime and I cannot believe she ever granted carte blanch to States to execute people regardless of the crime. Show us something to support this reckless claim.

The Church has not given carte blache to execute for any crime. It has been silent about punishments for felonies. Even in the United States, I cannot recall the Church saying anything about executions in the South regarding rape and robbery. Men and sometimes youths went to the electric chair without comment by the Catholic hierarchy there.

You mean you don’t think the bishops will come back to the traditional teaching of the Church.

Traditional calling for the death penalty? Some tradition!

Perhaps not, but until the Church actually repudiates it I see no reason to think it wrong.

You may think that the Church is wrong from alpha to omega, if you like.

I, however, am convinced that the Church will never return to the “tradition” of callling for death in all capital crimes. Even Pope John Paul II asked the Governor of Missouri to commute a condemned man’s sentence - which he did. That surely must have bugged all the pro-death folks mightily, with their desire to see all murderers put to death.