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

[TMC]

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

Ender

I never said that. In fact, I think I expressly denied that the Pope made such a declaration. He has said it is never justified. I think that amounts to something very similar, but he has not used the term “intrinsically evil”.

 

[LongingSoul]

I never said that. In fact, I think I expressly denied that the Pope made such a declaration. He has said it is never justified. I think that amounts to something very similar, but he has not used the term “intrinsically evil”.

You are right and the Church will never use the term intrinsically evil to describe capital punishment even if for thousands of years to come, it is soundly rejected within general law.

It is similar to the time as a child when your mother says ‘never cross the road by yourself, Johnny’. She is not saying that crossing the road alone is intrinsically evil. Having a natural sense of the nature of the mother/child relationship, she speaks in the context of her tenure as mother of a dependent child. The child himself doesn’t interpret ‘never’ to mean never in any family dynamic anywhere, anytime. He doesn’t think that his older siblings were evil because they didn’t hold Mums hand to cross the road.

It’s the same with our relationship with the Mother Church. ‘Never’ means within the proper context of our human relationship. Our relationship with her is most fully comprehended in the spirit of humble respect for the roll of a ‘mother’ in the faith life of the offspring.

Edit to add: this is highlighted by Pope StJPII’s use of the word ‘Today’ in prefacing the statement from the Catechism 2267 and Pope Francis use of the word ‘nowadays’ to comment recently about the Churchs position.

 

[Ender]

I never said that. In fact, I think I expressly denied that the Pope made such a declaration. He has said it is never justified. I think that amounts to something very similar, but he has not used the term “intrinsically evil”.

Fine, then if it not an intrinsic evil then Francis has said nothing different than JPII, the doctrine on capital punishment remains unchanged, states have a right to apply it, and because the opposition to it is prudential we have no obligation to assent to it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The EWTN article cited is better than many in that it at least recognizes that the catechism’s opposition to the application of capital punishment is prudential and not a new doctrine. There are other comments made, however, that are less commendable.

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.

I have seen this asserted before but I am not confident it is accurate, or at least the assumption that is made that the church opposed capital punishment. It may be accurate that there was opposition to the involvement of Christians - like there is against the involvement of the clergy in imposing or carrying out such punishment - but that is not the same as saying the church opposed the its use.

Only after the Church was legalized and the state influenced by its teaching would Catholics be allowed such offices.

According to this the church did not form her doctrines on revelation but on the influence of secular societies. I think we can be pretty sure this isn’t accurate.

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.

Like the previous claim, this one is simply the invention of the author. First, there is not one word in either the catechism (2267) or Evangelium Vitae (#56) that mentions mercy, let alone presents an argument against capital punishment based on that concept. Second, this is actually an ineffectual argument given that mercy is not something that is appropriate in every case. If one opposes capital punishment because mercy should be shown then there is no argument against it at all in those cases where mercy should not be shown.

Ender

 

[TMC]

Fine, then if it not an intrinsic evil then Francis has said nothing different than JPII, the doctrine on capital punishment remains unchanged, states have a right to apply it, and because the opposition to it is prudential we have no obligation to assent to it.

Ender

Your statement makes no sense. The Pope does not have to use your chosen magic words. He has said that all Christians have an obligation to oppose the death penalty everywhere. If an individual Catholic chooses to ignore that teaching, that is between him and his conscience. But one can’t simply pretend the Pope is not teaching that the death penalty is to be opposed.

 

[LongingSoul]

Your statement makes no sense. The Pope does not have to use your chosen magic words. He has said that all Christians have an obligation to oppose the death penalty everywhere. If an individual Catholic chooses to ignore that teaching, that is between him and his conscience. But one can’t simply pretend the Pope is not teaching that the death penalty is to be opposed.

Pope Francis is expressing what every other Pope in history would express were he leading the Church today. The whole argument that Popes speak mere whimsical opinions from the seat of Peter is bizarre.

MORAL LIFE AND THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH

2032 The Church, the “pillar and bulwark of the truth,” "has received this solemn command of Christ from the apostles to announce the saving truth."74 "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls."75

2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the “deposit” of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

**2034 **The Roman Pontiff and the bishops are "authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people entrusted to them, the faith to be believed and put into practice."76 The ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Pope and the bishops in communion with him teach the faithful the truth to believe, the charity to practice, the beatitude to hope for.

2035 The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as does the deposit of divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, or observed.77

**2036 **The authority of the Magisterium extends also to the specific precepts of the natural law, because their observance, demanded by the Creator, is necessary for salvation. In recalling the prescriptions of the natural law, the Magisterium of the Church exercises an essential part of its prophetic office of proclaiming to men what they truly are and reminding them of what they should be before God.78

2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.79 They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.

2038 In the work of teaching and applying Christian morality, the Church needs the dedication of pastors, the knowledge of theologians, and the contribution of all Christians and men of good will. Faith and the practice of the Gospel provide each person with an experience of life “in Christ,” who enlightens him and makes him able to evaluate the divine and human realities according to the Spirit of God.80 Thus the Holy Spirit can use the humblest to enlighten the learned and those in the highest positions.

**2039 **Ministries should be exercised in a spirit of fraternal service and dedication to the Church, in the name of the Lord.81 At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

2040 Thus a true filial spirit toward the Church can develop among Christians. It is the normal flowering of the baptismal grace which has begotten us in the womb of the Church and made us members of the Body of Christ. In her motherly care, the Church grants us the mercy of God which prevails over all our sins and is especially at work in the sacrament of reconciliation. With a mother’s foresight, she also lavishes on us day after day in her liturgy the nourishment of the Word and Eucharist of the Lord.

I was trying to isolate points to bold… but that would mean bolding the whole section of the Catechism. This section reveals the true heart of Catholic faith, our obligations to the Mother Church and the heart of the loyalty to Christs promise to be with the Church to the end of time.

 

[Darryl1958]

ewtn.com/expert/answers/capital_punishment.htm

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/social-justice/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment.html

The mounting opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent supporters of capital punishment were the Christian churches, and its most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches. When death came to be understood as the ultimate evil rather than as a stage on the way to eternal life, utilitarian philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham found it easy to dismiss capital punishment as “useless annihilation.”

Many governments in Europe and elsewhere have eliminated the death penalty in the twentieth century, often against the protests of religious believers. While this change may be viewed as moral progress, it is probably due, in part, to the evaporation of the sense of sin, guilt, and retributive justice, all of which are essential to biblical religion and Catholic faith. The abolition of the death penalty in formerly Christian countries may owe more to secular humanism than to deeper penetration into the gospel.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I could entirely see the state by state domino effect with the DP falling. Its hard to see at a Federal level. There is no repenting when someone finds the absolute truth imho. So a change of heart for killing infidels is hardly likely. Isis and just war is a rare bird. When they sell two people for $500 bucks into slavery while butchering the useless and intend on spreading the evil world wide you have your rare bird. The two can’t be qualified today with abolishing the death penalty and admitting a need for just war. No one has a plan for caring for the terrorists. Where? Cuba?

Add the abortion dilemma in the USA. Good thing the Pope is coming to America, hopefully he will pray for and consecrate the place.

The fact we should want to get rid of the death penalty seems elementary and a reminder that we should remain civil, amen, but its not a factual possibility of a soon to be reality on a federal level. The reality is a long war and just war staring the West in the face. And probably for your very survival. I wouldn’t worry about anyone repenting, I would think about the “when and how” to apply just war. When one may suggest how that is applied, perhaps we can begin to address the living and conditions of Gitmo and so forth.

 

[Ender]

Your statement makes no sense. The Pope does not have to use your chosen magic words.

True, but we do have to understand the nature of those words to recognize what they mean and how we are to respond to them. The terms I use are those the church uses to indicate the type teaching involved, which determines what type of response is required of us. Whatever a pope, bishop, or cardinal says can be sorted according to one of those categories. All I have done is assert the kind of teaching Francis made with his comments on capital punishment.

He has said that all Christians have an obligation to oppose the death penalty everywhere.

Yes, but what kind of teaching was it? Doctrinal or prudential?

If an individual Catholic chooses to ignore that teaching, that is between him and his conscience. But one can’t simply pretend the Pope is not teaching that the death penalty is to be opposed.

If Francis’ words are prudential, as they unarguably seem to be, then while they are to be seriously considered, we have no moral obligation to agree with them, and disagreement with him cannot be considered dissent from church teaching.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Pope Francis is expressing what every other Pope in history would express were he leading the Church today. The whole argument that Popes speak mere whimsical opinions from the seat of Peter is bizarre.

Assuming someone actually made such an argument it would still be less bizarre than your depressing indifference to the truth. You should recognize that you demonstrate the weakness of your own position when the only comments you can rebut are those you invent yourself to ascribe to others.

Ender

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well truth be told I do think also the conversation is a pastoral one in relation to a doctrinal approach. Its pretty consistent with Pope Francis. Further even with doctrinal this has never been a well defined area. Its a matter of mercy and justice in applied understanding.

 

[LongingSoul]

True, but we do have to understand the nature of those words to recognize what they mean and how we are to respond to them. The terms I use are those the church uses to indicate the type teaching involved, which determines what type of response is required of us. Whatever a pope, bishop, or cardinal says can be sorted according to one of those categories. All I have done is assert the kind of teaching Francis made with his comments on capital punishment.
Yes, but what kind of teaching was it? Doctrinal or prudential?
If Francis’ words are prudential, as they unarguably seem to be, then while they are to be seriously considered, we have no moral obligation to agree with them, and disagreement with him cannot be considered dissent from church teaching.

Ender

‘Prudential’ is not a word used by the Church as some kind of distinction from ‘doctrinal’. I’ve only really ever seen it used by Americans who love the death penalty and seek to diminish the Popes statements on it. In any case the Catechism defines the virtue of prudence as…

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.” “Keep sane and sober for your prayers.” Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment.** With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.**

So prudence is not applying personal taste or opinion to a decision such as whether to have strawberry or chocolate icecream… it’s a virtue that applies moral principles to a decision in order that good is achieved rather than evil.

When Pope Francis is addressing the Catholic position on the death penalty, if he is using prudence, he is applying moral principles to the issue.

How is that not directly related to the doctrine that applies to the use of capital punishment? It’s simply wrong to use the term ‘prudential judgement’ as though its a synonym for personal taste or private opinion.

 

[LongingSoul]

Assuming someone actually made such an argument it would still be less bizarre than your depressing indifference to the truth. You should recognize that you demonstrate the weakness of your own position when the only comments you can rebut are those you invent yourself to ascribe to others.

Ender

My position is that of the Catholic Church to who’s teachings I assent with faith and docility. The Church is clearly and confidently affirming the moral goodness of abolishing the death penalty and encouraging the countries around the world to get rid of it from general law altogether. You continually assert that the Churchs position here has no moral component but is merely a few individual Popes opinion which requires no measure of assent by a Catholic. What this demonstrates is your lack of real understanding and respect for the living Magisterium. There are times when some from the Protestant tradition come into the Church having abandoned sola scriptura but having adopted a similar closed concept of Christ with us which amounts to ‘sola pre VII tradition’. This denies the nature of the Magisterium alive today speaking in continuity with all of Scripture and Tradition. Being Catholic means having the proper relationship with our mother the Church, now as one and the same Mother Church who has been been our mother for the last 2000 years. This error seems to my mind, be the one you are afflicted with and I’ll continue to endeavour to educate you on that point.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s a link which may help.

catholicsmobilizing.org/church-speaks/pastoral-statements/

 

[GaryTaylor]

August 2002, a “clarification” was issued by a Catholic delegate to the joint-commission, Cardinal William Keeler of Baltimore.

Following is an abbreviated glossary of the most common types of documents issued by the Holy See, and terms associated with them.

Apostolic constitutions (apostolicae constitutiones): solemn, formal documents on matters of highest consequence concerning doctrinal or disciplinary matters, issued by the pope in his own name. They are published as either universal or particular law of the Church. (Examples: the Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium; Constitution on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.)

Apostolic exhortation (apostolica exhortatio): a papal reflection on a particular topic that does not contain dogmatic definitions or policy directives, addressed to bishops, clergy and all the faithful of the entire Catholic Church. Apostolic exhortations are not legislative documents. (Example: Familiaris Consortio, on the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World.)

Apostolic letter (apostolica epistola): a formal papal teaching document, not used for dogmatic definitions of doctrine, but to give counsel to the Church on points of doctrine that require deeper explanation in the light of particular circumstances or situations in various parts of the world.

Declaration (declamatio): may be a simple statement of the law, which must be interpreted according to the existing law; or an authoritative declaration that is retroactive and does not require further promulgation; or an extensive declaration, which modifies the law, is not retroactive and must be promulgated according to the law.

Decree (decretum): a statement involving Church law, precepts or judicial decisions on a specific matter. It is an ordinance given by one having the power of jurisdiction (such as a bishop within his particular diocese, the head of an office of the Roman Curia, or the pope), acting administratively to promote compliance with the law. A decree announces that a given document or legislative text is in effect.

Encyclical (encyclica epistola - literally, “circular letter”): a formal apostolic letter issued by the pope usually addressed to the bishops, clergy and faithful of the entire Church. Example, Humanae vitae, concerning the Church’s teaching on birth control issued in 1968 by Pope Paul VI.

Instruction (instructio): explains or amplifies a document that has legislative force, such as apostolic constitutions, and states how its precepts are to be applied. (e.g., Liturgiam authenticam, on liturgical translation, an Instruction on the correct implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.)

Institutio: instituted arrangement or regular method, rules (as in Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani).

Motu proprio (literally, by one’s own initiative): a legislative document or decree issued by the pope on his own initiative, not in response to a request. (Examples: Apostolos Suos; Misericordia Dei.)

Promulgation (promulgatio): the process whereby the lawmaker communicates the law to those to whom the law has been given. (The official effective date on which a document is promulgated may or may not coincide with the date on which a document is actually published.)

Recognitio: confirms the review of documents that are submitted by a conference of bishops to the relevant office (dicastery) of the Holy See. Recognitio is required before the provisions of documents that modify universal law may come into effect. Recognitio thus signals acceptance of a document that may have legislative force. (Recognitio is required for all documents that modify universal liturgical norms, for example.)

 

[Darryl1958]

…
If Francis’ words are** prudential, **as they unarguably seem to be, then while they are to be seriously considered, we have no moral obligation to agree with them, and disagreement with him cannot be considered dissent from church teaching.

Ender

That is how I understand the teaching.

It is no small matter either, for the difference between prudential and absolute informs us on the methods that would be most prudent to progressively make the case for life.
It is more prudent to focus on the taking of innocent life as the first step, ergo to focus on the death penalty imposed on the unborn. It is more prudent to focus on those sentence to death when the ability of intent is demonstrably impaired, that is the mentally challenged, the abused, the desperate.
To make the case by focusing on the unrepentant individual of evil, malevolent intent, who are members of a political and social/religious movement at** war** with American and Catholic values, does not demonstrate prudence in judgement, whatsoever.

 

[Ender]

‘Prudential’ is not a word used by the Church as some kind of distinction from ‘doctrinal’.

Of course it is; it is a distinction the church herself makes.

I’ve only really ever seen it used by Americans who love the death penalty and seek to diminish the Popes statements on it.

Well, you’ve seen me cite Cardinal Dulles several times addressing this point, so once again what you say is untrue.

In any case the Catechism defines the virtue of prudence as…
With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

Yes, prudence is involved in the application of moral principles for the achievement of a desired goal, but the prudential decisions are not themselves the moral principles nor are they guaranteed to be correct…nor - and what is relevant here - are we obliged to agree with the judgments others make.

When Pope Francis is addressing the Catholic position on the death penalty, if he is using prudence, he is applying moral principles to the issue.

Yes he is, as are all of us - as we are required to do.

How is that not directly related to the doctrine that applies to the use of capital punishment? It’s simply wrong to use the term ‘prudential judgement’ as though its a synonym for personal taste or private opinion.

I use the term as the church uses it, as it is used here: the application of moral principles for the achievement of a valid goal. The thing is, the application of personal judgment makes the decision an opinion, not a fact and surely not a doctrine.

Ender

 

[Ender]

My position is that of the Catholic Church to who’s teachings I assent with faith and docility.

I assent to her doctrines as well. I do not, however, confuse doctrines with judgments.

You continually assert that the Churchs position here has no moral component but is merely a few individual Popes opinion which requires no measure of assent by a Catholic.

Once again you show no compunction about distorting my comments so clarifying my position is probably fruitless, nonetheless I’ll try again. The last three popes have all personally opposed the use of capital punishment on the grounds that its use is detrimental to society. That judgment is either accurate or inaccurate but there is no moral choice involved, so, no, determining what action will work best has no moral component.

Ender

 

[GaryTaylor]

catholicmoraltheology.com/prudential-judgment-101-a-theological-roundtable/

In the case of the death penalty, I think there are two ways we can reflect on specific cases. One is to think about the US as a whole, as a specific case: is the US one of those places where, on the basis of prudential judgement, there is more danger to people without the death penalty than with it? The burden of proof will be to those who want to say that the US should use the death penalty, since the principle, based on Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism, is that the death penalty ought to be rare, if not non-existent. It is, again, concerned about innocent people being murdered at the hands of the state, even though in these instances most of the people being murdered are adults.
The second kind of specific case is to reflect on particular people’s court cases where the death penalty is to be used. On this, of course, the appeals system system serves to do some kind of prudential reflection. Presuming that one has already assumed that it is prudent for the US to have the death penalty at all, it is then important, in this kind of case, to allow the justice system to do its job, but here too, we would want to be very careful to help all of us in this democratic society to reflect on whether we see rightly about this. Is our prudential judgement working well? The point of raising questions about race and poverty as disproportionate in death penalty cases is to exactly to probe the degree to which we are able to make the kind of “excellent” discernment that prudential judgement requires, and each specific case needs to have that kind of scrutiny.

 

[HDLSeanWileyTin]

that’s about one of the only good things about the catholic church to me: the opposition to the death penalty.