D
Darryl1958
Guest
Secularists opposed it long before the Catholic Church jumped on the bandwagon.
Massachusetts bishops speak out against death penalty for alleged Boston Marathon bomber
- Status
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Officially you mean. Catholics in Australia supported abolition as per the states direction back in the early 1900’s as per this article in the official Catholic journal of the time. At no point did the Vatican express opposition to this movement happening since a century ago.
"Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?
This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no. Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system. Since it was difficult to arrest highway robbers, firebugs, etc., those that were actually caught were punished the more drastically. Whether fewer, such criminals now escape arrest and full punishment than formerly, especially if they are rich, may be questioned. But the fact remains that what we now call the police system was extremely primitive in the days of old. Robbery on a grand scale, formerly conducted by a liberal use of physical violence, is now carried on in a more refined manner, though the effect is the same. It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether. So much seems to be sure, that the number of those has not died out who will be deterred from committing great crimes by nothing short of death."
Freeman’s Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1932) (Later to become the Catholic Weekly still being printed today)
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/123253640
The impetus of the Churchs statements today are not a response to the natural movement towards abolition of the DP… but a rebuttal of the false interpretation of Church teaching that argues that the death penalty is the default just punishment for murder regardless of factors that determine the common good.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
I mean that the impetus for the abolition of the death penalty has not been Catholic teaching, but the Enlightenment.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Clearly the ‘Enlightenment’ was accurate on this issue.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
The Englightenment was right on a lot of issues.
To be clear though, one needs to make the clear argument, rather than reverting back to the authoritarianism of the Pope, cafeteria style.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
And they were wrong about many issues also. 
therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-kills-it-with-answer-on-second-amendment-background-checks-and-public-opinion/
Our liberty protects our freedom. Such is the case in Boston. And here’s the hate and in fact discrimination and controverted law.
examiner.com/article/first-ted-cruz-ad-sparks-anti-christian-hate-bigotry
therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-kills-it-with-answer-on-second-amendment-background-checks-and-public-opinion/
Our liberty protects our freedom. Such is the case in Boston. And here’s the hate and in fact discrimination and controverted law.
examiner.com/article/first-ted-cruz-ad-sparks-anti-christian-hate-bigotry
E
Ender
Guest
Right. How fortunate we are to have had the Enlightenment to correct the errors in the church. Ender
J
J_Peterson
Guest
God was in charge of the Enlightenment as much as He is in charge of the Church. I don’t see why the secular world can’t correct the errors of the Church, it’s God all the way down.
S
SWolf
Guest
God was in charge of Communism as much as He is in charge of the Church.
God was in charge of Pol Pot as much as He is in charge of the Church.
Why doesn’t this sound right?
Ah, yes.
E
estesbob
Guest
No need of the church then. Just let the culture define morality . Each person can create a God in their own image and likeness and the only sin is not acceding to the views of the current culture
And we do have a very enlightened culture. Executing a few dozen people a year is a crime against man , killing 1.2 million children a year is a sacred right that must be protected at all costs. The old and infirm need to get out-of-the-way to make room for the young and vibrant Families are whatever one wants to make of them and sexuality is reduced to “if it feels good do it” and let anyone who disagrees with that be shunned.
J
J_Peterson
Guest
So you think God was completely absent from the Communist countries? Was He completely absent in the lives of the Enlightnment thinkers? God is always in charge. To think otherwise is to make the same mistake as the Devil. I think it would be clever of God to use secular thinkers to correct the Church. Perhaps it was the Chruch that loved the world a bit too much when it burned people that they felt were a threat to their power and God had to correct the Church through the people? If the Church is doing something wrong, can we expect the Chruch to correct themselves? It’s very clear that they can’t be trusted to govern themselves when it comes to sexual abuse. They followed the pattern of the world and it took those outside to make them see clearly what they were doing.
The words of Jesus don’t mean we have to hate everything that the secular world comes up with. He gave us a brain and His Grace to pick what’s good and leave what’s bad, that’s what that passage says to me. Can a Christian not vote in elections because that is part of “the world”? In fact getting involved with politics is to make friends with “the world”. Heck, American Democracy was a product of the Enlightenment.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Completely absent is non sequitur. Its the prevailing attitude which is the problem with the weeds and flowers growing together.
S
SWolf
Guest
No, but it doesn’t mean they listened to him. God was in charge when Pol Pot slaughtered millions. That doesn’t mean he approved of it.
Are secular thinkers right about abortion?
If the doctrines of secular things are more enlightened than the Church, then the Holy Spirit failed, and there’s no point in being Catholic. The Church is a supernatural gift in our natural world, not capable of error in dogma of faith and morals.
Secular authorities burned people at the stake for heresy, not the Church. The Church only stated whether or not one was guilty of heresy.
Also, you’re aware a lot of the reason for the so-called reformation was because the German princes wanted not only secular, but religious power, right? The Church has fought the secular world trying to get the Church to conform to it’s morals since antiquity.
The first Pope, Peter, was a coward on at least one occasion. Weakness of leadership is well known in the Church. That is no way nullifies her teachings.
Also, take of look a sexual abuse amongst public school teachers sometime. Seems the world can’t regulate evil either. The only reason the abuse in the Church got the spotlight was because it was a stone secularists could throw at the Church.
If the world brings up teachings that go against the teachings of the Church He himself established, there’s a problem. He said himself you can not serve both Him and the world.
The vote is a tool of evangelization. So is political involvement.
Democracy has been around since the Greeks. Also, no political system is more intrinsically moral than another. All can be morphed into horrible regimes, it’s just a matter of how easy.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
It flaws me each time. You rant constantly about being mischaracterised, and then…
L
LongingSoul
Guest
The world is a fallen place and will ever struggle in the journey to the last day. There has never been a time when good and evil haven’t been at war in the culture. Even in the Papal States, the battle of good and evil raged.
There is an awful lot of good in the world that are evidence of Christian principles infused with secular culture. I think its great the way the Church travels with us as pilgrims on a journey providing sustenance in the form of courageous Popes who personally speak for the Church on social issues… rather than being locked in holy castles and gothic catherdrals issuing documents stamped with holy seals.
Abortion and contraception are genuine scourges in society that are supported by cancerous ideologies regarding human life. Good and evil continue to battle in secular culture though. One of the signs of good is the increasing rejection of the death penalty around the world. The Church didn’t initiate that direction. It came naturally as part of the good in the culture. The Church is speaking up for it now more forcefully I’m guessing because of the sudden attack on this good by particularly US Christians who are calling it an evil movement and to be fought against. We alone are the representatives of all that is good they say. We fight for God against the culture that wants to take away our divine right to kill the enemies of heaven!
The Church affirms the good in our culture and denounces the bad. That’s what she does as part of her journey with us.
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
E
Ender
Guest
This is an interesting assertion. It claims the “Enlightenment” was right and the church, not so much (but we can all take heart from the fact that the church is right now. Finally). So the question is: how do we know it’s right now?
Do we know opposition to capital punishment is right because “we” believe the church now opposes it? But if she was wrong in supporting it before when her position was based on revelation, scripture, and sacred tradition, what reason do we have for believing she is right now when her position is based on the opinions of the last three popes? Or should we believe she is right because “we” believe her position now aligns with our own, as in “I’m glad the church finally came around to my way of thinking”?
The thing is, if we are willing to accept that secular society was right on this issue and the church was wrong we have quite literally abandoned any logical reason to believe the church is right now, which leaves us believing it is right…why? Because the societies that believe in abortion, euthanasia, and gay “marriage” believe it, or simply because we personally believe it ourselves? In either case, it’s a pretty thin reason.
Ender
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Capital punishment is not a divine command. It’s just a type of punishment that serves a purpose in the administration of civil justice. The Church has never said it must be used to satisfy justice. When its necessary to the task of protecting and promoting the common good, the Church has stepped in to affirm that it is not intrinsically evil to take life for this purpose. When it is being dropped from general law due to a growing sensitivity towards the value of human life, the Church has never tried to impede that movement but has always affirmed the states right to punish crime according to its mandate to protect society. She has done this through the local bishops or clergy addressing the issue to locals who might mistakenly have thought that capital punishment was intrinsically necessary for justice to be served.
Around the world the death penalty has been gradually abandoned in general law without any opposition from the Vatican. She speaks up forcefully now to counter the strong, erroneous belief that is mainly US based, that capital punishment is necessary for justice and should never be dropped from general law based on a divine command. It is clear that there can be legitimate debate about whether capital punishment serves the common good or not through general law, but it is more than clear that if it isn’t serving the common good it is a moral evil to use it. It cannot be retained as being above the law by virtue of divine command. That is an illegitimate use of the states authority.
Now, that is all I’m going to contribute to this thread. You have your opinion and clearly nothing or nobody is ever going to shift it.
E
Ender
Guest
If there can be legitimate debate about whether capital punishment is or is not beneficial then it is incorrect to say, as you did in post #223, that “Clearly the ‘Enlightenment’ was accurate on this issue.” Their opposition was not because they felt it was not socially useful but because they found it to be immoral. Clearly that position was not accurate.
Ender
D
Darryl1958
Guest
That is basically the problem that popes and bishops are now having. The strength of the Catholic teaching is that what was true yesterday is true today and will be true tomorrow. Therefore the popes can be trusted because the teaching is the wisdom of the ages, and is the same.
But what the current popes are saying about the death penalty is not the same. Since the authority of the office is constancy, knowledge of history itself is what is undercutting the authority of the teaching.
The better conclusion therefore is not that there has been a change in teaching, but that everyone, even popes, are entitled to their own opinions.
This is not to say that people who have dedicated their lives to the faith and to meditating on morality are to be ignored, but in considering the opinions of the popes we must also understand the kind of intellectual environment that the learned people of our society have studied under.
Our universities have become left wing seminaries, as Dennis Prager notes. This is as true of Catholic universities as it is for secular universities. That is the kind of bias that we can expect to exist in the learned opinions of priests and bishops and cardinals and popes, who are almost without exception all learned men today.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Its hard to qualify the Boston case in light of Isis
cnsnews.com/news/article/lauretta-brown/exorcist-isis-satan
I understand it may be argued that the Boston fellow isn’t in fact Isis. Still, how does one in just war contend with this, and how does that relate to the death penalty. Kendra made a great point on another thread and I agree. They don’t understand anything but death.
- Status