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

[jinglebelle]

Death penalty isn’t new or just came into existence with the foundation of the USA. Catholic monarchs put people to death for crimes. What were bishops and popes saying then? Was it fine for back in the day, but isn’t now? Heck, being put to death now is less cruel than being beheaded with an ax, laying there waiting on the guillotine to wack your head off, or being electrocuted. Now it is just injections.
If it was fine then and bishops weren’t making public statements then, was the church wrong? I thought the church teaches the same Truth as 2000 years ago. Never changing.

Hearting you Dixie but in a nice way

 

[estesbob]

Then how do you explain the past changes to Church teachings? Jesus told us that we would grow in understanding under the guidance of the Spirit. Is that not what is happening, and has happened many times in the past?

There have been no changes in matters of faith and morals. Your examples of slavery and usury have been thoroughly debunked.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Situations like Boston and this fellows brother with self defense have been historic. Rome has had to protect itself from like tyrants before. I didn’t read about them building prison systems though. Reluctant, as Alfred the Great recorded, also he “knew” they would be back. Because in any just war, you can’t kill them all. War doesn’t mean kill them all nor would that be just. But you can stop the aggression.

 

[TMC]

There have been no changes in matters of faith and morals. Your examples of slavery and usury have been thoroughly debunked.

Simply repeating that no teachings have changed does not alter historical fact. The Church does not shy away from the fact that her teachings have changed from time to time.

 

[Ender]

There are technical differences between fallible and infallible teachings, but the Church does not identify which of its teachings are “fallible,” so there we are not able to say which are which. Even if we were, “fallible” does not mean “optional,” and Catholics are not free to pick and choose between the Churches teachings.

It is surely true that we may not pick which doctrines we will follow, whether fallible or infallible. My point is that this is not true of prudential judgments.

All of the teachings of the Church are mandatory. If a Catholic chooses to dissent from a particular teaching, that is that Catholic’s choice and between the Catholic, his conscience and God. But make no mistake, that person is in dissent.

Disagreeing with a judgment is not to disagree with the church.
Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.

In this case, the Pope is clearly saying that supporting the death penalty is immoral - not that the death penalty is merely unwise.

Well, I trust that this is not what he is saying inasmuch as the church has in the past held this belief to be heresy.

He has called upon all Christians to abolish the death penalty in all its form, everywhere. One can dissent from that teaching, but it is simply intellectually dishonest to pretend that taking a position contrary to the Church’s teaching is something other than dissent.

If you understand his comment to be doctrine then opposing it would be dissent. If, however, it is understood as prudential judgment, then as you can see from Dulles’ comment, disagreeing with it “is not to dissent from church teaching.”

Ender

 

[Ender]

The way I understand the current teaching is that the death penalty must in some way be a defense of society. That is keeping with the other teachings on taking a life; it can only be done in defense of self or another person and must be proportionate to the threat.

Not exactly. The church has always taught that there are three reasons a life may be validly taken.
Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
*A. Human life may be lawfully taken: *
1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
*3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… *(Baltimore Catechism)
Ender

 

[estesbob]

Simply repeating that no teachings have changed does not alter historical fact. The Church does not shy away from the fact that her teachings have changed from time to time.

That simply is not true.

 

[TMC]

It is surely true that we may not pick which doctrines we will follow, whether fallible or infallible. My point is that this is not true of prudential judgments.
Disagreeing with a judgment is not to disagree with the church.
Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.
Well, I trust that this is not what he is saying inasmuch as the church has in the past held this belief to be heresy.
If you understand his comment to be doctrine then opposing it would be dissent. If, however, it is understood as prudential judgment, then as you can see from Dulles’ comment, disagreeing with it “is not to dissent from church teaching.”

Ender

You can’t escape Church teachings by simply calling them “judgments.” That is simply a semantic game.

 

[GaryTaylor]

to be doctrine then opposing it would be dissent. If, however, it is understood as prudential judgment,

Its not one to dismiss the other, and it is formation of conscious thus judgement. To ascend to the Church teaching is to believe everything the Church teaches in the understanding of the mind of the Church, not ones own perhaps wrong understanding. And the Church states Just War is a doctrine. However, the Church speaking in regards here is not clear. Had that been the case she would address the underlying issue of “just war” which you cannot resolve at world martyrdom for Jesus and non resistance to violence. What is contended for is truly a admirable faith in God since it leaves its very followers mortally defenseless to blood martyrdom, Saints indeed. Evil doesn’t ascend to moral teaching and while the teachings in morality have changed OT-NT, evil remains none the less the same. I have to conclude calling for an end to the death penalty, while well needed and noble, doesn’t change the doctrine of just war and the very idea that in rare instances the death penalty may be used. And by Catholic Doctrine.

Now unless someone can explain that, all I see is a avoided point which we all agree on already. Of course we want everyone to be Saints. Man by large is still of his fallen nature and fight and flight. Barbarism has never changed.

How to do you qualify all this? So to put this in perspective, I am thinking with the mind of the Church imho.

 

[Ender]

You can’t escape Church teachings by simply calling them “judgments.” That is simply a semantic game.

No, it isn’t. Understand the implications of your position. If Francis’ words are a new doctrine then it is a repudiation of what JPII said just 20 years ago. JPII specifically said the use of capital punishment could be justified in specific - if rare - circumstances. This is also what the catechism says, so if Francis is saying capital punishment is now an intrinsic evil he has reversed what all previous catechisms and popes have said before him. Is that the position you want to take?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

No, it isn’t. Understand the implications of your position. If Francis’ words are a new doctrine then it is a repudiation of what JPII said just 20 years ago. JPII specifically said the use of capital punishment could be justified in specific - if rare - circumstances. This is also what the catechism says, so if Francis is saying capital punishment is now an intrinsic evil he has reversed what all previous catechisms and popes have said before him. Is that the position you want to take?

Ender

TMC did not say there is a new doctrine. Neither did he/she say that Pope Francis is now saying that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. You made that up. It’s a strawman.

 

[robertericleech]

Tsarnaev is 21 years old. I believe at that age, the prospect of spending the next fifty or more years in the Federal Supermax prison is a far more terrifying fate than the death penalty.

He will most likely be sent to ADX Florence, in Colorado, where the Unabomber, Terry Nichols, and Zacarias Moussoui live. He would spend 23 hours a day in a 7’ x 12’ cell, with a four inch wide window. Until he dies. There’s no way that’s less harsh than lethal injection.

 

[estesbob]

TMC did not say there is a new doctrine. Neither did he/she say that Pope Francis is now saying that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. You made that up. It’s a strawman.

So a Catholic can , in good conscience , support the death penalty. What are we arguing about then?

 

[LongingSoul]

So a Catholic can , in good conscience , support the death penalty. What are we arguing about then?

Something can be evil but not intrinsically evil. An act is evil depending on the fonts of morality. An act is intrinsically evil when there is no place, time or situation that would ever justify it. The Church is calling for the abolition of the death penalty now because on quite a few counts, it cannot be justified. Seeing the law at work in the recent San Bernadino arrest makes it quite clear that we really don’t have a good enough grasp of justice to be permitted to use the death penalty to redress the disorder to the community.

 

[estesbob]

Something can be evil but not intrinsically evil. An act is evil depending on the fonts of morality. An act is intrinsically evil when there is no place, time or situation that would ever justify it. The Church is calling for the abolition of the death penalty now because on quite a few counts, it cannot be justified. Seeing the law at work in the recent San Bernadino arrest makes it quite clear that we really don’t have a good enough grasp of justice to be permitted to use the death penalty to redress the disorder to the community.

You didn’t answer the question. Can a Catholic, in good conscience, support the death penalty.?if the answer is no then one must believe the Church has jettisoned 2,000 years of teachings and all their teachings are suspect.

 

[LongingSoul]

You didn’t answer the question. Can a Catholic, in good conscience, support the death penalty.?if the answer is no then one must believe the Church has jettisoned 2,000 years of teachings and all their teachings are suspect.

Pope Francis said in a recent letter regarding the death penalty… "As I expressed in my allocution of last October 23, “the death penalty implies the denial of love to enemies, preached in the Gospel. All Christians and all men of good will are obliged not only to fight for the abolition of the death penalty, legal or illegal, and in all its forms, but also for prison conditions to be better, in respect of the human dignity of the persons deprived of freedom.”

zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-letter-to-international-commission-against-the-death-penalty

What the Church now teaches doesn’t contradict past teaching… it enriches our understanding and illuminates the unchangable core of doctrine.

 

[estesbob]

Pope Francis said in a recent letter regarding the death penalty… "As I expressed in my allocution of last October 23, “the death penalty implies the denial of love to enemies, preached in the Gospel. All Christians and all men of good will are obliged not only to fight for the abolition of the death penalty, legal or illegal, and in all its forms, but also for prison conditions to be better, in respect of the human dignity of the persons deprived of freedom.”

zenit.org/en/articles/pope-s-letter-to-international-commission-against-the-death-penalty

What the Church now teaches doesn’t contradict past teaching… it enriches our understanding and illuminates the unchangable core of doctrine.

We know what Pope Francis opinion is. The question is a Catholic bound to accept his opinion or can a Catholic rely on 2,000 years of consistent teaching on the Death Penalty? And how can you possible say the what the Francis says now doesn’t contradict past Church teaching-it even contradicts what his predecessor said!! Does the Truth change from Pope to Pope?

 

[RACJ]

You didn’t answer the question. Can a Catholic, in good conscience, support the death penalty.?if the answer is no then one must believe the Church has jettisoned 2,000 years of teachings and all their teachings are suspect.

Good question, Bob. Of all the issues to be concerned about, I will never understand the decision to protest for the life of a mass-murdering terrorist who richly deserves his eternal “reward”.

 

[LongingSoul]

We know what Pope Francis opinion is. The question is a Catholic bound to accept his opinion or can a Catholic rely on 2,000 years of consistent teaching on the Death Penalty? And how can you possible say the what the Francis says now doesn’t contradict past Church teaching-it even contradicts what his predecessor said!! Does the Truth change from Pope to Pope?

Human justice serves the common good. The death penalty isn’t intrinsically evil but is evil if it doesn’t serve the common good. As a society we continue to grow in awareness of the value of human life and the importance of preserving life at all costs. The teachings of the Church evolve to reflect that growing sensitivity to lifes value and while not saying that a death penalty is intrinsically evil… says it should be abolished now as harmful to society. Human justice is guided by the common good. That’s always been the core staple of the doctrine that permits capital punishment. That hasn’t changed.

 

[LongingSoul]

Good question, Bob. Of all the issues to be concerned about, I will never understand the decision to protest for the life of a mass-murdering terrorist who richly deserves his eternal “reward”.

That’s what people said when Jesus stopped the stoning of the adulteress.