Massachusetts bishops speak out against death penalty for alleged Boston Marathon bomber

[GaryTaylor]

There is nothing wrong with hunting. We might not do it anymore to endangered species but killing animals is very normal and eating a burger produced from in a giant factory isnt any more moral than a recreatonal hunt which can also be used to make tasty meat dishes or another use. Youtubers and those who live as far away from wild animals as possible tend to be those who dislike hunting the most.

She wants to squeeze the right to bear arms and anti gun laws into the conversation, doesn’t see a need. But as I see it we arrive at the same point. And I have to assume she is also seeing that unavoidable point of contact.

So at what point do you defend life and how in relation to just war and the DP? I don’t see where that question has been answered.

 

[LongingSoul]

There is nothing wrong with hunting. We might not do it anymore to endangered species but killing animals is very normal and eating a burger produced from in a giant factory isnt any more moral than a recreatonal hunt which can also be used to make tasty meat dishes or another use. Youtubers and those who live as far away from wild animals as possible tend to be those who dislike hunting the most.

Here is the core point. Hunting is neither good nor evil. It has been part of the human survival story since day dot. Its morality and legality are determined by the ecological and economic indications and our social conscience guided by the Church. It is wrong to kill whales because firstly we no longer need their carcasses for our survival. Secondly the importance of their role in the ecology is now evident as their numbers drop… this in turn has inspired us to be awed by their grandeur and magnificence as a creature (of God for us theists).

Capital punishment likewise in neither good nor evil in itself. It’s morality and legality are determined by sociological and humanistic indications and our conscience guided by the Church. When our conscience needs a hand the Church is there as the guardian of Truth to urge us in the right direction. The Catechism says…

2419 "Christian revelation . . . promotes deeper understanding of the laws of social living."199 The Church receives from the Gospel the full revelation of the truth about man. When she fulfills her mission of proclaiming the Gospel, she bears witness to man, in the name of Christ, to his dignity and his vocation to the communion of persons. She teaches him the demands of justice and peace in conformity with divine wisdom.

2420 **The Church makes a moral judgment **about economic and social matters, "when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it."200 In the moral order she bears a mission distinct from that of political authorities: the Church is concerned with the temporal aspects of the common good because they are ordered to the sovereign Good, our ultimate end. She strives to inspire right attitudes with respect to earthly goods and in socio-economic relationships.

2421 The social doctrine of the Church developed in the nineteenth century when the Gospel encountered modern industrial society with its new structures for the production of consumer goods, its new concept of society, the state and authority, and its new forms of labor and ownership. The development of the doctrine of the Church on economic and social matters attests the permanent value of the Church’s teaching at the same time as it attests the true meaning of her Tradition, always living and active.201

2422 The Church’s social teaching comprises a body of doctrine, which is articulated as the Church interprets events in the course of history, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, in the light of the whole of what has been revealed by Jesus Christ.202 This teaching can be more easily accepted by men of good will, the more the faithful let themselves be guided by it.

 

[estesbob]

Here is the core point. Hunting is neither good nor evil. It has been part of the human survival story since day dot. Its morality and legality are determined by the ecological and economic indications and our social conscience guided by the Church. It is wrong to kill whales because firstly we no longer need their carcasses for our survival. Secondly the importance of their role in the ecology is now evident as their numbers drop… this in turn has inspired us to be awed by their grandeur and magnificence as a creature (of God for us theists).

Capital punishment likewise in neither good nor evil in itself. It’s morality and legality are determined by sociological and humanistic indications and our conscience guided by the Church. When our conscience needs a hand the Church is there as the guardian of Truth to urge us in the right direction. The Catechism says…

2419 "Christian revelation . . . promotes deeper understanding of the laws of social living."199 The Church receives from the Gospel the full revelation of the truth about man. When she fulfills her mission of proclaiming the Gospel, she bears witness to man, in the name of Christ, to his dignity and his vocation to the communion of persons. She teaches him the demands of justice and peace in conformity with divine wisdom.

2420 **The Church makes a moral judgment **about economic and social matters, "when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it."200 In the moral order she bears a mission distinct from that of political authorities: the Church is concerned with the temporal aspects of the common good because they are ordered to the sovereign Good, our ultimate end. She strives to inspire right attitudes with respect to earthly goods and in socio-economic relationships.

2421 The social doctrine of the Church developed in the nineteenth century when the Gospel encountered modern industrial society with its new structures for the production of consumer goods, its new concept of society, the state and authority, and its new forms of labor and ownership. The development of the doctrine of the Church on economic and social matters attests the permanent value of the Church’s teaching at the same time as it attests the true meaning of her Tradition, always living and active.201

2422 The Church’s social teaching comprises a body of doctrine, which is articulated as the Church interprets events in the course of history, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, in the light of the whole of what has been revealed by Jesus Christ.202 This teaching can be more easily accepted by men of good will, the more the faithful let themselves be guided by it.

But Pope Francis contradicts this. His says a Christian must fight against the death penalty. So does that mean the Cathecism is wrong, all his predecessors were wrong and the Church itself has been wrong for 2,000 years or is he expressing his personal opinion and the Churches teaching remains intact? If the former is true then everything I’ve been taught about the church , including my four years in the seminary, are suspect and I need to seriously consider whether the Church is really the guardian of truth or has now become just another denomination that changes its teachings to conform to the mores of the current culture?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I know, I love the way she introduced “save the whales” in the conversation.

it is being implied that we live in a morally superior time as the basis for the current opposition to the death penalty?.. I believe that is the strawman that the pro death penalty side have constructed to detract from the strength of the Church’s call for abolition.

 

[LongingSoul]

But Pope Francis contradicts this. His says a Christian must fight against the death penalty. So does that mean the Cathecism is wrong, all his predecessors were wrong and the Church itself has been wrong for 2,000 years or is he expressing his personal opinion and the Churches teaching remains intact? If the former is true then everything I’ve been taught about the church , including my four years in the seminary, are suspect and I need to seriously consider whether the Church is really the guardian of truth or has now become just another denomination that changes its teachings to conform to the mores of the current culture?

Pope Francis is not contradicting any teaching by calling for Christians to oppose the death penalty. It would be opposed to truth for him not to correct false conceptions of the death penalty that distort Catholic teaching and give the impression of discontinuity. He is very much obliged to speak up as he has done.

2420 The Church makes a moral judgment about economic and social matters, "when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it."

 

[estesbob]

Pope Francis is not contradicting any teaching by calling for Christians to oppose the death penalty. It would be opposed to truth for him not to correct false conceptions of the death penalty that distort Catholic teaching and give the impression of discontinuity. He is very much obliged to speak up as he has done.
2420 The Church makes a moral judgment about economic and social matters, "when the fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it."

So by contradicting what everyone of his predecessors has said about the death penalty he is not giving the impression of discontinuity?3.

I ask again-Can a Catholic, in good conscience, oppose the death penalty?. If the answer is no how can one reconcile that with Pope Benedicts acclamation that one could? Have we had a major doctrinally shift in the course of 13 years?

 

[Ender]

Pope Francis is not contradicting any teaching by calling for Christians to oppose the death penalty.

So you disagree with TMC that Francis has declared the death penalty to be intrinsically evil?

Ender

 

[estesbob]

Could someone reconcile these two statements:

*"All Christians and people of good will are therefore called to fight for the abolition of the death penalty,” *

Pope Francis

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict

 

[LongingSoul]

So by contradicting what everyone of his predecessors has said about the death penalty he is not giving the impression of discontinuity?3.

I ask again-Can a Catholic, in good conscience, oppose the death penalty?. If the answer is no how can one reconcile that with Pope Benedicts acclamation that one could? Have we had a major doctrinally shift in the course of 13 years?

The death penalty is permitted if it serves the common good of justice. It is forbidden if it is not serving human justice. Two different things can be prescribed in two different eras and still be one and the same doctrinal truth. We are not expected to flip from one side of this same coin to the other suddenly which is why the transition to the eventual worldwide abolition of the death penalty is gradual. As Aquinas says of human law…

“The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils: thus it is written (Pr. 30:33): “He that violently bloweth his nose, bringeth out blood”; and (Mt. 9:17) that if “new wine,” i.e. precepts of a perfect life, “is put into old bottles,” i.e. into imperfect men, “the bottles break, and the wine runneth out,” i.e. the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break into evils worse still”.

You just need not try to blow so hard and make a bloody mess. Understanding will come in time.

 

[estesbob]

The death penalty is permitted if it serves the common good of justice. It is forbidden if it is not serving human justice. Two different things can be prescribed in two different eras and still be one and the same doctrinal truth. We are not expected to flip from one side of this same coin to the other suddenly which is why the transition to the eventual worldwide abolition of the death penalty is gradual. As Aquinas says of human law…
“The purpose of human law is to lead men to virtue, not suddenly, but gradually. Wherefore it does not lay upon the multitude of imperfect men the burdens of those who are already virtuous, viz. that they should abstain from all evil. Otherwise these imperfect ones, being unable to bear such precepts, would break out into yet greater evils: thus it is written (Pr. 30:33): “He that violently bloweth his nose, bringeth out blood”; and (Mt. 9:17) that if “new wine,” i.e. precepts of a perfect life, “is put into old bottles,” i.e. into imperfect men, “the bottles break, and the wine runneth out,” i.e. the precepts are despised, and those men, from contempt, break into evils worse still”.
You just need not try to blow so hard and make a bloody mess. Understanding will come in time.

So who do I follow? Pope Francis or Pope Benedict.? Their statement contradict each other. Benedicts reflects the teaching in the Catechism so if Francis is right is there a new edition of the catechism coming out reflecting this doctrinal change?

 

[LongingSoul]

So who do I follow? Pope Francis or Pope Benedict.? Their statement contradict each other. Benedicts reflects the teaching in the Catechism so if Francis is right is there a new edition of the catechism coming out reflecting this doctrinal change?

"Pope Benedict XVI encouraged countries around the world to end the death penalty as a legal sanction at his Nov. 30, 2011 general audience.

Addressing a group of pilgrims gathered in Rome for an international conference on the controversial topic, the Pope said he hopes that their deliberations “will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty.”

The conference was organized by the Italian-based Sant’Egidio Community under the theme of “No Justice Without Life.” The Pope told them that he applauded “the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”"

Both Pope Francis and Benedict and John Paul II have been actively promoting the transition away from using capital punishment. All are completely in sync in this endeavour.

 

[LongingSoul]

So you disagree with TMC that Francis has declared the death penalty to be intrinsically evil?

Ender

Pope Francis did not say that it is intrinsically evil.

 

[LongingSoul]

Could someone reconcile these two statements:

*"All Christians and people of good will are therefore called to fight for the abolition of the death penalty,” *

Pope Francis

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Pope Benedict

Pope Benedicts 2004 comment came from a fraternal letter to an American Cardinal addressing specifically American issues… The US is in the process of abolishing capital punishment. 11 years later Pope Francis in a general audience at the Vatican, continues to urge this movement towards complete abolition.

 

[estesbob]

Pope Benedicts 2004 comment came from a fraternal letter to an American Cardinal addressing specifically American issues… The US is in the process of abolishing capital punishment. 11 years later Pope Francis in a general audience at the Vatican, continues to urge this movement towards complete abolition.

Benedict said a Catholic may support the death penalty. Is this still true?

Are there other teachings of the Church we can expect the Church to “transition” away from?

 

[GaryTaylor]

But we already rejected the transition claim, what, a modern transition with the evolved morality of mankind?

 

[LongingSoul]

Benedict said a Catholic may support the death penalty. Is this still true?

Pope Benedict said that a Catholic may present for Communion whilst disagreeing with the Church over the application of the death penalty. That isn’t quite the same as what you said. I strongly suspect that when the death penalty has been abolished in the US, this statement will be considered within the context it was given… ie. a response to a specific US related question about worthiness to receive Communion and ones political stance.

Are there other teachings of the Church we can expect the Church to “transition” away from?

In the recent past the Church has said also that a citizen can vote for a candidate who has a less aggressive abortion policy than another if there are no other candidates that conform to the Catholic teaching on abortion. I would think that when the global tide begins to turn against abortion, that concession won’t apply anymore.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Capital Punishment - The Pope’s Position

The Church’s teaching has not changed, nor has the Pope said that it has. The Catechism and the Pope state that the state has the right to exact the death penalty. Nations have the right to just war and individuals have the right to self-defense. Does that means that any and all uses of force to defend oneself against a criminal, or a criminal nation, are justified? No, and most people understand that.

To be good every moral act must satisfy three elements

1. The act itself must be good.
2. The intention of the one doing it must be good.
3. The circumstances must be appropriate.

1. Capital punishment is the right of the state. This is the principle taught by the Church. The Pope does not deny it, but neither St. Thomas or any Magisterial text presumes this gives the state an unlimited right to make capital laws and carry them out. It is inherent in a just capital punishment law that there be proportion between the taking of the life of the criminal and the benefit expected to the common good. A law, for example, that takes no account of factors such as repentance, mental age and so on is unjust. States have executed the mentally retarded, who could be of no conceivable future threat to society, and in one case a woman whose evident conversion even the state admitted. Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor.
2. Intention. The motive of the state is good when it follows a just law, that is, its decision is motivated by the requirements of the common good and not by motives of vengeance. This is probably not usually a problem of the state, though some officials evidence it, but it is clearly the mind of many in the public, a fact every execution seems to bring out.

1. Circumstances. There are, of course, individual circumstances related to the particular capital case which, as I noted, a just law takes into account. Here I want to consider, however, certain general circumstances. The Pope has noted that in the developed countries the possibility exists to incarcerate criminals for life, removing definitively any threat to society. Thus, the Catechism continues in paragraph 2267,

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority should limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Another circumstance, and one related to “the concrete conditions of the common good,” is the nature of our society. We have become a culture of death. The question really arises as to whether we have just laws, and whether we can execute those we do have justly. Abortion has worked a truly horrible corruption of our country, for which we are beginning to pay the price, not just in demonic violence but in the “corruptio mentis” (corruption of mind and heart) of people in general. This is manifested in the malfeasance of justice, by police, juries, prosecutors and judges at all levels of the justice system. In the early Church a similar situation existed. During the time of pagan Rome, Catholics could not hold civil or military office if they could be obliged to judge capital crimes or execute capital punishment. Only after the Church was legalized and the state influenced by its teaching would Catholics be allowed such offices. As the state becomes less influenced by the truth the Catholic finds himself returning to the quandary of the early Christians. Thus, while the state may have the right, all other factors being respected, to execute the criminal it also has the opportunity for mercy. If the greater good of the society is protected adequately then the Church argues for mercy, both so that the respect due to every life is restored and so that the unconverted might convert and save their souls. Thus, in Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism (2267) the Pope concludes,

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (EV 56)
So, in the end is the Pope changing Church teaching by arguing against capital punishment? Absolutely not! It fact, it would be contrary to Church teaching to say that capital punishment is per se immoral, as some do. Rather, the Pope states that the conditions of modern society argue against it’s use in all but rare cases. It is simply becoming harder and harder to argue that a particular act of capital punishment is circumstantially necessary (the third element of a good moral act). The Pope is NOT substituting his judgment for the political prudence of those who must make decisions about when to use capital punishment. He is teaching principles and making a general evaluation about modern circumstances. Ultimately, the laity who are responsible for these judgments in political society must make them in the individual cases. In doing so, however, they have a grave obligation to apply all the principles taught by the Church to the cases before them, as taking a human life is always grave matter if done unjustly.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL-EWTN

 

[FollowChrist34]

GaryTaylor:
Thanks Gary for above. This is why I love the Catholic Church. Nailed it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Thanks Gary for above. This is why I love the Catholic Church. Nailed it.

Sounds like the point all are at.

 

[stevegravy]

Some crimes are so savage the perpetrator loses the right to breath. This is one of those times.