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

[estesbob]

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”.

The ironic part is I oppose the death penalty. I believe, however, we are playing with fire when start claiming the Church has changed its teachings to be more in line with todays “enlightened” generation.

 

[LongingSoul]

The ironic part is I oppose the death penalty. I believe, however, we are playing with fire when start claiming the Church has changed its teachings to be more in line with todays “enlightened” generation.

When who starts claiming “the Church has changed its teachings to be more in line with todays “enlightened” generation”? Do you mean Pope St JPII…

Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but “non-violent” means to counter the armed aggressor. In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.

Another welcome sign is the growing attention being paid to the quality of life and to ecology, especially in more developed societies, where people’s expectations are no longer concentrated so much on problems of survival as on the search for an overall improvement of living conditions. Especially significant is the reawakening of an ethical reflection on issues affecting life. The emergence and ever more widespread development of bioethics is promoting more reflection and dialogue-between believers and non-believers, as well as between followers of different religions- on ethical problems, including fundamental issues pertaining to human life. = Evangelium Vitae

Are you saying this is merely ‘opinion’ as well?

 

[estesbob]

When who starts claiming “the Church has changed its teachings to be more in line with todays “enlightened” generation”? Do you mean Pope St JPII…

Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but “non-violent” means to counter the armed aggressor. In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.

Another welcome sign is the growing attention being paid to the quality of life and to ecology, especially in more developed societies, where people’s expectations are no longer concentrated so much on problems of survival as on the search for an overall improvement of living conditions. Especially significant is the reawakening of an ethical reflection on issues affecting life. The emergence and ever more widespread development of bioethics is promoting more reflection and dialogue-between believers and non-believers, as well as between followers of different religions- on ethical problems, including fundamental issues pertaining to human life. = Evangelium Vitae

Are you saying this is merely ‘opinion’

 

[Darryl1958]

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

Did she deliberately maim and kill anyone in the name of God?

 

[estesbob]

When who starts claiming “the Church has changed its teachings to be more in line with todays “enlightened” generation”? Do you mean Pope St JPII…

Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but “non-violent” means to counter the armed aggressor. In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.

Another welcome sign is the growing attention being paid to the quality of life and to ecology, especially in more developed societies, where people’s expectations are no longer concentrated so much on problems of survival as on the search for an overall improvement of living conditions. Especially significant is the reawakening of an ethical reflection on issues affecting life. The emergence and ever more widespread development of bioethics is promoting more reflection and dialogue-between believers and non-believers, as well as between followers of different religions- on ethical problems, including fundamental issues pertaining to human life. = Evangelium Vitae

Are you saying this is merely ‘opinion’ as well?

So when Pope Benedict said a Catholic could support the death penalty he was misleading the flock? Does a Catholic have to wake up every morning to check and see what curent Church teaching is?

 

[Darryl1958]

Catholic leadership has gotten way too smart when it comes to clear teaching on capital punishment.

It is clear as mud what is being taught, because the teaching has not changed, but the leadership has.

 

[TMC]

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

That is the position I am taking. It is also the position that Francis is taking. It is a development of existing doctrine, not a reversal. But even if it were a reversal, I would not be troubled by it.

 

[estesbob]

That is the position I am taking. It is also the position that Francis is taking. It is a development of existing doctrine, not a reversal. But even if it were a reversal, I would not be troubled by it.

So a Catholic is morally required to oppose the death penalty? Are those who followed the previous 2,000 years of teachings grandfathered in or do they now have to oppose it? Are those who died while supporting it going to be sent to purgatory or hell to atone for violating a doctrine that changed after they died?

 

[LongingSoul]

So a Catholic is morally required to oppose the death penalty? Are those who followed the previous 2,000 years of teachings grandfathered in or do they now have to oppose it? Are those who died while supporting it going to be sent to purgatory or hell to atone for violating a doctrine that changed after they died?

In the past people killed animals for their pelts (bears/sables), tusks (elephants), blubber (whales) etc. etc. It was not called slaughter, poaching, whaling and was not illegal in any way. We don’t indict our ancestors for the practices they undertook in the course of human survival. Now that we have a way of being fed, clothed, warmed and sheltered through human ingenuity and advances, that don’t require these sorts of killing… and we are much more aware of the ecological balances in nature that value the place of other species… we can call those practices immoral and make them illegal.

Something that could be justified as very good and right for the survival of man in the past, has become unethical, unnecessary and illegal today. People can’t keep claiming the right to do something now based on the fact that it was necessary and good in the past. That is nothing but a lack of natural empathy and sociological conscience to not see anything wrong in that logic.

 

[Darryl1958]

Are people nos so sheltered from the reality of the food chain that they think that animals are still not being slaughtered, in order to stock those supermarket shelves?

 

[LongingSoul]

Are people nos so sheltered from the reality of the food chain that they think that animals are still not being slaughtered, in order to stock those supermarket shelves?

We have whole industries now that produce for our needs with accountability and ecological awareness. Trees are purpose grown and animals are purpose raised and we have a greater sense of the humane and ecologically friendly aspect in those human endeavours… albiet we are not always perfect. The fact remains that ethics/morality is constantly applied to things as our awareness evolves. We don’t look back on our ancestors and indict them for doing things which we now determine immoral and illegal. That’s would amount to a type of narcissism.

 

[Darryl1958]

We have whole industries now that produce for our needs with accountability and ecological awareness. Trees are purpose grown and animals are purpose raised and we have a greater sense of the humane and ecologically friendly aspect in those human endeavours… albiet we are not always perfect. The fact remains that ethics/morality is constantly applied to things as our awareness evolves. We don’t look back on our ancestors and indict them for doing things which we now determine immoral and illegal. That’s would amount to a type of narcissism.

Nor do we, as I had just said elsewhere, change our principles like we change underwear.

Rock of Ages implies a constancy across the ages, which is indeed the Catholic’s faith major strength vis-a -vis more novel evolutions of the faith. Catholics need to recognize that to make the argument against capital punishment now, there is a difference between making a rational argument for that in the present situation, and making it as a mandatory argument for all Catholics.

Ethical treatment of animals is as old as Kosher laws in Judaism. Even that is nothing new.

 

[LongingSoul]

Nor do we, as I had just said elsewhere, change our principles like we change underwear.

Rock of Ages implies a constancy across the ages, which is indeed the Catholic’s faith major strength vis-a -vis more novel evolutions of the faith. Catholics need to recognize that to make the argument against capital punishment now, there is a difference between making a rational argument for that in the present situation, and making it as a mandatory argument for all Catholics.

Ethical treatment of animals is as old as Kosher laws in Judaism. Even that is nothing new.

But what constituted moral killing of animals in the past is not the same as what constitutes the moral use of animals today is not the same as what constitutes the moral killing of animals in the future is not what constitutes the moral killing of animals on the first day of the world. The morality of a practice depends on our knowledge of the overall impact of that practice balanced with its necessity in the good of human society. Those elements are a constantly changing variable throughout the entire course of human history. There is no historical period that can claim the divine default in addressing use of the death penalty. In every age, its use or abolition depend on the needs of human society in creating justice within the community of men. It’s use or abolition is always a matter of prudential judgement that revolves around the concerns of the common good.

 

[GaryTaylor]

But what constituted moral killing of animals in the past is not the same as what constitutes the moral use of animals today is not the same as what constitutes the moral killing of animals in the future is not what constitutes the moral killing of animals on the first day of the world. The morality of a practice depends on our knowledge of the overall impact of that practice balanced with its necessity in the good of human society. Those elements are a constantly changing variable throughout the entire course of human history. There is no historical period that can claim the divine default in addressing use of the death penalty. In every age, its use or abolition depend on the needs of human society in creating justice within the community of men. It’s use or abolition is always a matter of prudential judgement that revolves around the concerns of the common good.

I think your points are spot on. But I also think we confuse this period of social transition we are in as perhaps a higher moral social period in relation to what we are called to do. At least through the thread I get this impression. What I’m reminded of is the Church and V-II.

Vatican II: The Pilgrim Church on earth, Lumen Gentium (LG) chapter 7 develops the image of the Church as a pilgrim community. A pilgrim is different to a tourist in that the pilgrim’s journey is both external and interior. The exterior journey is the movement through space and time to a destination. The interior journey concerns the search for ultimate meaning and spiritual benefit. The pilgrim has a spiritual end in mind and not simply the visit to a destination.

The whole of the human race and all of creation is oriented towards one goal: to be renewed in Christ (LG 48) and to reach completion in Him. The Scriptures point to this purpose in Christ (Acts 3:21, Eph 1:10, Col 1:20, 2 Pet 3:10-13). Christ came not for a mere handful of people who are called Christians but came for all people and the whole of creation.

This renewal of all creation and the Kingdom of God has already begun in Christ (LG 48). The Church on earth is a sign of this transformation and the first fruits of the mission of Christ.

Christ’s mission of renewal and establishing the Kingdom in its fullness is carried on through the mission of the Spirit in the Church. It is significant for us to remember that the Church is essential to the mission of Christ. The Church is not an end in itself but the universal sacrament of salvation.

The Church from the time of Pentecost until now is on a pilgrimage. Those who have gone before us have marked the way and added to our understanding of what Christ reveals. Earlier pilgrims have wrestled with questions about the humanity and divinity of Christ, the Trinitarian nature of God, the sacraments, the books which constitute the Bible and many other questions.

Since earlier pilgrims have left us with markers for our journey, we do not have to retrace the paths again and wander aimlessly. Some of these markers include various doctrinal decisions, previous councils and the example and writings of some of the saints and great theologians of the past. So much of what the other pilgrims have learned is collected in the wisdom of the Liturgy.

The whole Church has continued on her pilgrim way over more than 2000 years toward the fullness of the Kingdom, which will be revealed when Christ comes again in glory. In the same way, each individual person makes his or her pilgrim journey. Like St Paul, we mature in faith and, as we grow, we put childish understandings of faith behind us, with other childish things, and grow towards maturity in faith in Christ (1 Cor 13:10-12).

The image of the whole Church as being on pilgrimage towards the fullness of the Kingdom means that Christians living today are only one part of the journey, and our insights and ways of understanding only one small contribution.

We should not think that our present experience is the sole criterion for understanding the journey. A little historical humility may be called for as we journey on together, grateful to receive from the past and willing to help guide future pilgrims.

In the journey we are responsible to our own knowledge obtained and the journey of the Church through any social period could travel through time is no different than the bloodline of Jesus Christ, ups and downs with the ultimate goal. Pope Francis put it very well, “we are in the middle of a love story”

catholicnewsagency.com/news/church-is-a-love-story-pope-francis-says/

I don’t know what dying with Jesus and walking with God means for everyone and its a long path for everyone as it is the Church, or like the Apostle Paul. You have to persevere, prevail was the word Jesus used.

There is no new rule about killing, surely we should address this state to state in the process to at very least reduce the not well thought out murders.

Anyway perspective.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The just war question is when will you protect life and how, same as with the death penalty and as we said with abortion. As to the death penalty I can’t see where you can possibly think “rare bird” and then go on to rationalize all these state to state DP cases’. Nor could I with abortion.

The Boston case may not be the rare bird either, but he gives you the idea that the illusive rare bird is out there. As does Isis with just war.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think your points are spot on. But I also think we confuse this period of social transition we are in as perhaps a higher moral social period in relation to what we are called to do. At least through the thread I get this impression. What I’m reminded of is the Church and V-II.

If I understand what you are saying correctly… that 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.

It’s an obvious thing that the natural world and mankind are in a constant state of evolution. It happens that way through each generation building on the work of the last for the betterment of life. It will happen in the next generations that by standing on the shoulders of what is learned and created now…new and better ways of community living and filial experience will evolve.

There is simply no natural basis for arguing that if something is rejected as harmful to the common good in this era that it must mean that in the past, society was evil or inferior for employing that very practice to the same end. Some in the Church are still afraid of the word ‘evolution’ to describe a natural process… let alone the whole concept of the evolution within the life of faith and Church.

 

[GaryTaylor]

If I understand what you are saying correctly… that 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.

It’s an obvious thing that the natural world and mankind are in a constant state of evolution. It happens that way through each generation building on the work of the last for the betterment of life. It will happen in the next generations that by standing on the shoulders of what is learned and created now…new and better ways of community living and filial experience will evolve.

There is simply no natural basis for arguing that if something is rejected as harmful to the common good in this era that it must mean that in the past, society was evil or inferior for employing that very practice to the same end. Some in the Church are still afraid of the word ‘evolution’ to describe a natural process… let alone the whole concept of the evolution within the life of faith and Church.

We are in “our time” I didn’t compare it to any time, and evil has always existed and I agree the modern evolution of mankind still leaves us with the same evil contended with in the middle of this love story. 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.

 

[Ender]

That is the position I am taking. It is also the position that Francis is taking. It is a development of existing doctrine, not a reversal. But even if it were a reversal, I would not be troubled by it.

First, if the church were now to oppose something she has always supported there is no way to contend this is not a reversal. Second, if you are right about Francis’ position it means he has repudiated the words both of JPII in Evangelium Vitae and of the catechism, and such a rapid alteration of doctrine ought to be of great concern to everyone. The pope is charged not with inventing new doctrine but with defending existing doctrine. You are much too unconcerned with whether church doctrine changes from one generation to the next.

Ender

 

[Darryl1958]

But what constituted moral killing of animals in the past is not the same as what constitutes the moral use of animals today is not the same as what constitutes the moral killing of animals in the future is not what constitutes the moral killing of animals on the first day of the world.

That is a point of disagreement between you and I.
I don’t subscribe to moral relativism, and what was moral yesterday is different than what is moral today.
The nature of animals have not changed, and what would have been cruel and painful for animals yesterday, or at the beginning of the world, would be no more or less painful for the animal, and no more or less cruel on our behalf if it happens today. Our standards of what we consider to be moral changes with greater understanding. The actual morality of an act is timeless.

The morality of a practice depends on our knowledge of the overall impact of that practice balanced with its necessity in the good of human society.

There is a rational argument to be made along those lines.Admonishing people that the Church has changed teaching with the circumstances is not an argument that follows rationality, but is a dogmatic argument.
The dogma of the Church on killing animals or on capital punishment has not changed. The opinions of many church leaders have changed over the years, but that is not the same as a change in teaching.
Take for example the fact that years ago before the pedophilia scandal came to light, Churchmen followed the expert opinion of the psychiatric and psychological communities that pedophilia was a malleable condition, and that forgiveness, acceptance, and unconditional love of the sinner was the solution.
This did turn out well for the Church. Thankfully, it never became an explicit dogmatic teaching of the Church either.
The same is also true of capital punishment. It is up to the bishops involved to make the argument for the case against capital punishment humbly, with full recognition that their opinions are not God’s own truth. It is up to us to weigh the evidence against our own conscience and the arguments of others, rather than to accept everything out of a pope’s or a bishop’s mouth as dogmatic truth and infallible Catholic Doctrine.

Those elements are a constantly changing variable throughout the entire course of human history. There is no historical period that can claim the divine default in addressing use of the death penalty. In every age, its use or abolition depend on the needs of human society in creating justice within the community of men. It’s use or abolition is always a matter of prudential judgement that revolves around the concerns of the common good.

Likewise, ever case in every age is different. There are some cases where capital punishment is clearly the worse choice, today, yesterday and tomorrow.
Likewise, there are individual cases where it will be much, much harder to make those arguments.

At any rate, it is the arguments that must be made for these cases. Bishops play a crucial role here, but one is not required that what any bishop teaches on capital punishment rise to the same level of de fide belief as the core of the faith, such as the Resurrection, for instance.

 

[boar2roar]

In the past people killed animals for their pelts (bears/sables), tusks (elephants), blubber (whales) etc. etc. It was not called slaughter, poaching, whaling and was not illegal in any way. We don’t indict our ancestors for the practices they undertook in the course of human survival. Now that we have a way of being fed, clothed, warmed and sheltered through human ingenuity and advances, that don’t require these sorts of killing… and we are much more aware of the ecological balances in nature that value the place of other species… we can call those practices immoral and make them illegal.

Something that could be justified as very good and right for the survival of man in the past, has become unethical, unnecessary and illegal today. People can’t keep claiming the right to do something now based on the fact that it was necessary and good in the past. That is nothing but a lack of natural empathy and sociological conscience to not see anything wrong in that logic.

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.