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

[J_Peterson]

The permissibility of slavery.
The permissibility of charging interest.
The possibility of salvation for non-Catholic Christians.
The possibility of salvation for non-Christians.

The Church now explains each of these changes as a clarification, extension or development of past doctrine. But viewed from the pre-change perspective, each appears to be a clear reversal of doctrine. The same thing is happening with this teaching.

Not sure if it counts but originally you could only go to confession once in a lifetime. I think it was Irish monks who introduced the idea of confessing as often as needed. Is that a clarification or a reversal?

 

[stevegravy]

The Bishops are wrong. Some folks by the heinous nature of their crimes lose the right to breath. What the churchmen do not comprehend is if justice isn’t done, there is no need for government.

 

[TMC]

Not sure if it counts but originally you could only go to confession once in a lifetime. I think it was Irish monks who introduced the idea of confessing as often as needed. Is that a clarification or a reversal?

Not sure if that is a doctrine or a practice, but that is also my understanding. Prior to around 700 confession was rare (or even just once), and usually public. Frequent private confession is an Irish innovation that was eventually adopted by the whole Church.

 

[SWolf]

The permissibility of slavery.

Chattel slavery was always condemned. Other forms of slavery (Prisoner labor, POW labor, etc.) are still permissible.

The permissibility of charging interest.

Usury and charging of interest are not synonymous. Aquinas even recognized as such. Usury was, and is still condemned.

frcoulter.com/presentations/usury/

The nature of the sin called usury has its proper place and origin in a loan contract (mutuum). This financial contract between consenting parties demands, by its very nature, that one return to another only as much as he has received. The sin rests on the fact that sometimes the creditor desires more than he has given. Therefore he contends some gain is owed him beyond that which he loaned, but any gain which exceeds the amount he gave is illicit and usurious.

Benedict XIV

The possibility of salvation for non-Catholic Christians.
The possibility of salvation for non-Christians.

Everyone in heaven is Catholic. Whether this was by formal Baptism or Baptism by desire is another question.

The Church now explains each of these changes as a clarification, extension or development of past doctrine. But viewed from the pre-change perspective, each appears to be a clear reversal of doctrine. The same thing is happening with this teaching.

All there has been so far is a change in the Catechism saying it should be rare, a current encyclical that says it should be rare, and a current Pope who does not like it. Neither does a change in teaching make.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Not sure if that is a doctrine or a practice, but that is also my understanding. Prior to around 700 confession was rare (or even just once), and usually public. Frequent private confession is an Irish innovation that was eventually adopted by the whole Church.

Perhaps yet public confessions has had its issues and has been addressed also with abuse in Italy.

therealpresence.org/archives/Sin/Sin_008.htm

One document issued by Pope St. Leo the Great in the middle of the fifth century, deserves to be quoted in full. He is writing to the bishops of Campania in Italy, reproving them for demanding a public confession of sins before receiving absolution in the sacrament of Penance.

“I have recently heard that some have unlawfully presumed to act contrary to a rule of Apostolic origin. And I hereby decree that the unlawful practice be completely stopped.

“It is with regard to the reception of penance. An abuse has crept in which requires that the faithful write out their individual sins in a little book which is then to be read out loud to the public.

“All that is necessary, however, is for the sinner to manifest his conscience in a secret confession to the priests alone…It is sufficient, therefore, to have first offered one’s confession to God, and then also to the priest, who acts as an intercessor for the transgressions of the penitents” (Magna indignatione, March 6, 459).

 

[BobCatholic]

The geometrical dimensions of he earth comes to mind.

That’s a question of science, not Church teaching. Definitely not moral theology or article of faith.

Is there a scripture verse for the geometrical dimensions of the Earth? I never saw one.

 

[Ender]

That was the Church’s teaching. The Church’s teaching is changing. If you believe the Church is the authoritative interpreter of Scripture, then I would expect you to accept that.

I don’t think so.*A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started. (Cardinal Newman)

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)

*It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. *(Christopher Ferrera)
*
For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. *(First Vatican Council)
Ender

 

[TMC]

Chattel slavery was always condemned. Other forms of slavery (Prisoner labor, POW labor, etc.) are still permissible.

Neither of these statements are accurate. The Church condoned chattel slavery for well more than a millennia. Diocese in the US actually owned slaves. On the other side, the Church today absolutely does condemn other forms of slavery.

Usury and charging of interest are not synonymous. Aquinas even recognized as such. Usury was, and is still condemned.

frcoulter.com/presentations/usury/

The Church now recognizes a distinction between interest and usury. For many centuries all interest was considered usury. Aquinas condemned all taking of interest on money lent. Some history on the topic here: newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

Everyone in heaven is Catholic. Whether this was by formal Baptism or Baptism by desire is another question.

There is no religion in heaven. But regardless of one’s view on that topic, I agree that the Church now teaches that non-Christians can be saved through an extension of the doctrine of baptism of desire. There were long stretches of Church history during which that was not the teaching. Unam Sanctum comes to mind, for example.

All there has been so far is a change in the Catechism saying it should be rare, a current encyclical that says it should be rare, and a current Pope who does not like it. Neither does a change in teaching make.

I think more has changed than that. How the new change gets formalized remains to be seen.

 

[TMC]

I don’t think so.A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started. (Cardinal Newman)*

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine* of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. (Cardinal Dulles)

*It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. (Christopher Ferrera)
*
For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. (First Vatican Council)
Ender

So are you saying that this is not a faithful development? Are the Pope and the Bishops not guarding revelation?

 

[Path_Finder]

Personally, I’m for not giving him the death penalty on the basis of I don’t want anyone to claim that he died a martyr for the cause.

Exactly. Just like your words say, he would be a “martyr for the cause”; Jihad, I tend to think that he was influenced by the elder brother. On the other hand, I’m curious what the victims of the bombing think, I did hear a short interview on the news earlier. It would be savage to, besides those who lost their lives, those who lost limbs and the like. Killing won’t bring any of this back. I do support the church but understand the counter-view.

If he were executed, terrorists would use this as an excuse. As it is, terrorists still use the excuse of someone incarcerated as a bargaining chip.

 

[Ender]

So are you saying that this is not a faithful development? Are the Pope and the Bishops not guarding revelation?

Either the doctrine remains that States have the right to employ capital punishment, or it has been reversed. If it is reversed then, no, that is not “development”; it is repudiation. This, however, is not what has happened. The doctrine remains unchanged; the objections to its use are practical, not moral.

Ender

 

[TMC]

Either the doctrine remains that States have the right to employ capital punishment, or it has been reversed. If it is reversed then, no, that is not “development”; it is repudiation. This, however, is not what has happened. The doctrine remains unchanged; the objections to its use are practical, not moral.

Ender

The Pope has made clear that it is a moral, not practical issue. He teaches that the death penalty “is an offense to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person which contradicts God’s plan for man and for society and his merciful justice, and it fails to conform to any just purpose of punishment.” You may disagree with him, but that is a statement of morality, not practicality.

 

[Ender]

The Pope has made clear that it is a moral, not practical issue. He teaches that the death penalty “is an offense to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person which contradicts God’s plan for man and for society and his merciful justice, and it fails to conform to any just purpose of punishment.” You may disagree with him, but that is a statement of morality, not practicality.

Is it your position that Francis has just defined capital punishment as an intrinsic evil?

Ender

 

[TMC]

Is it your position that Francis has just defined capital punishment as an intrinsic evil?

Ender

He is teaching that the death penalty is morally unacceptable and unjustified. It is certainly true that all unjustified killing is evil, but he has not (to my knowledge) made that particular definitive statement.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The teachings are consistent historically as is no salvation outside the Church. Here’s a link for the DP, nor do they believe life imprisonment is moral.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404377.htm

Slightly more clarity. There has never been salvation outside the Church it dates back to St Cyprian- Unity. Just ask any practicing Catholic if they believe they are going to Heaven not being in a State of Grace. The only alternative is perfect contrition. Whats the odds this will happen without a formed conscious in the Church?

To state the teaching “changed” is “untrue” since it suggests the truth can change. The truth illuminates the truth, no different than with the Incarnation or Trinity with scripture.

“It is impossible to imagine that states today cannot make use of another means than capital punishment to defend peoples’ lives from an unjust aggressor,” the pope said Oct. 23 in a meeting with representatives of the International Association of Penal Law.

Which is consistent with the CCC and the understanding of justice which is as far back as Platos Republic with Socrates

to defend peoples’ lives from an unjust aggressor,"

“just war”

unjust

Platos Republic

 

[Ender]

He is teaching that the death penalty is morally unacceptable and unjustified. It is certainly true that all unjustified killing is evil, but he has not (to my knowledge) made that particular definitive statement.

Either capital punishment is intrinsically evil or it isn’t…*And if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments. *(Christopher Ferrera)
Ender

 

[signit]

I agree that he has been ‘neutralized’ only for the moment. It is entirely possible that at some future date some group could capture one or more high value Americans and try to negotiate the release of Tsarnaev. That is only one of a number of scenarios that could play out.

I also oppose the death penalty.

But this is a legitimate argument that was brought up last night on a radio talk show.

Years from now, some terrorists in the Middle East capture an American family and hold them as hostages demanding the release of Tsarnaev their hero. The administration may be one that doesn’t have a policy against negotiating with terrorists, and they hand him back.

 

[DaveBj]

I also oppose the death penalty.

But this is a legitimate argument that was brought up last night on a radio talk show.

Years from now, some terrorists in the Middle East capture an American family and hold them as hostages demanding the release of Tsarnaev their hero. The administration may be one that doesn’t have a policy against negotiating with terrorists, and they hand him back.

Very good point.

In a previous post I agreed that Tsarnaev has been neutralized for the moment. My question for opponents of the death penalty is whether or not they can absolutely guarantee that Tsarnaev will never again be able to have any influence in human society, whether by action (killing another person), by influence (convincing others to kill), or, as in the hypothetical example above, actually being released back into society. The obvious answer is that they cannot. Thus, the wording in the first sentence of CCC para 2267 is still applicable, and the use of the death penalty in this case is still valid.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I also oppose the death penalty.

But this is a legitimate argument that was brought up last night on a radio talk show.

Years from now, some terrorists in the Middle East capture an American family and hold them as hostages demanding the release of Tsarnaev their hero. The administration may be one that doesn’t have a policy against negotiating with terrorists, and they hand him back.

Massachusetts doesn’t have a state death penalty and hasn’t executed anyone in 68 years, Eric Holder thought the case was severe enough to warrant death and took up the case Federally.

 

[signit]

Very good point.

In a previous post I agreed that Tsarnaev has been neutralized for the moment. My question for opponents of the death penalty is whether or not they can absolutely guarantee that Tsarnaev will never again be able to have any influence in human society, whether by action (killing another person), by influence (convincing others to kill), or, as in the hypothetical example above, actually being released back into society. The obvious answer is that they cannot. Thus, the wording in the first sentence of CCC para 2267 is still applicable, and the use of the death penalty in this case is still valid.

In fact, this is very similar to the argument my cousin used to make.

I’d say that under the death penalty there’s a possibility of making a mistake and executing the wrong person.

My cousin would agree that there’s that possibility . . . but if someone’s not executed there’s the theoretical possibility they could be set free to kill again.

And as an opponent, as you say, I can’t 100% guarantee that.

And I’d also want to know that “life means life,” no exceptions.