Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[LongingSoul]

No, not at all. This was all about the argument that capital punishment is an aspect of self defense, and that this argument is supported by the placement of 2267 under the subheading of Self Defense in the catechism. That the latest version of the catechism has 2267 under the subheading Capital Punishment removes this argument.

I have not argued that capital punishment is not part of self defense because of its placement in the catechism. There are other, better arguments to be made. I’m only pointing out that there is no argument that capital punishment is an aspect of self defense because it is in the self defense section of the catechism. It was once; it isn’t now.

Ender

The Compendium to the Catechism listed in the same archive was published in 2005. In its introduction the then Card. Ratzinger mentioned the 1992 Catechism and the edited 1997 version. No mention is made here or anywhere else of a new 2003 version. None of the foreign language translations reflect the changes that appear in that mistake ridden English version not even the original Latin version. The most recently published Catechisms here in Aus. are the 1997 edition plus the 2005 Compendium, none of which mention in any way shape or form a new 2003 version of a Catechism. I’ve checked.

 

[Ender]

The Compendium to the Catechism listed in the same archive was published in 2005.

If you look at the compendium of 2005 it supports the 2003 version of the catechism I cited.467. Why is the legitimate defense of persons and of society not opposed to this norm?
2263-2265
468. What is the purpose of punishment?
2266
469. What kind of punishment may be imposed?
2267
As you can see, 2267 is not contained in the section (467 above) that discusses self defense.

The most recently published Catechisms here in Aus. are the 1997 edition plus the 2005 Compendium, none of which mention in any way shape or form a new 2003 version of a Catechism. I’ve checked.

Check with the Vatican Publishing House (Libreria Editrice Vaticana); they’re the ones who published it. It has their copyright on it.the LEV is recognized as the* official publisher of the Holy See** with its Statute, approved in 1991 by the State Secretariat.* (Vatican web site)
vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/docs_lev/casa_editrice_it.htm
Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

The second argument is that the use of capital punishment has never been justified based on the argument of self defense. The church has never argued that it is a valid application of self defense, and in fact I don’t see how it could be. While it is true that we may kill in self defense we are specifically prohibited from having that intention. In the case of capital punishment, however, the death of the criminal is the entire objective, and that objective is contrary to the requirements for self defense.

Self-defense uses the principle of double effect, while CP doesn’t. So naturally it can’t be self-defense in the same sense of the word. But CP is undoubtedly a form of societal self-defense in that it is used to defend and protect the common good.

To see what I mean, here’s Cardinal Ratzinger:

“Clearly, the Holy Father [John Paul II] has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances. Thus, where other means for the self-defense of society are possible and adequate, the death penalty may be permitted to disappear.”

As for whether this better signifies man’s dignity, I’m not sure I see any reason to accept this. If you offer that as opinion then we can agree to disagree; if you believe it is a fact then I would contest it.

I would argue that it is a near-fact, but that’s ultimately irrelevant to this conversation. The point is that 2267 can, in its totality, be read in a light that is in line with Tradition.

But I’m not really arguing that your approach is wrong. The point I’m making here is that your position is entirely practical. There is no moral distinction between your position and the position taken by those who support the use of capital punishment.

I’m not saying those who support the use of capital punishment are choosing something in and of itself morally wrong. I’m arguing that we can read all of 2267 in a way where we don’t have to compromise Church teaching or in a way where we have to conclude the section got it wrong doctrinally.

 

[LongingSoul]

If you look at the compendium of 2005 it supports the 2003 version of the catechism I cited.467. Why is the legitimate defense of persons and of society not opposed to this norm?
2263-2265
468. What is the purpose of punishment?
2266
469. What kind of punishment may be imposed?
2267
As you can see, 2267 is not contained in the section (467 above) that discusses self defense.
Check with the Vatican Publishing House (Libreria Editrice Vaticana); they’re the ones who published it. It has their copyright on it.the LEV is recognized as the** official publisher of the Holy See** with its Statute, approved in 1991 by the State Secretariat. (Vatican web site)
vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/docs_lev/casa_editrice_it.htm
Ender

All the evidence points to 2003 date being a date that the text was uploaded to the site. If you look at the French version which also has a 2003 date, yet it does not have the strange changes the English text does. Neither it nor any other language texts add a capital punishment heading, delete the Apostolic letter and Constitution written by Pope JPII or delete the Evangelium Vitae source reference number from the source references.

That strong evidence along with the lack of some capitals at the beginning of sentences and the lack of proper paragraphing and other line spacings, indicates that this is not an official version.

Why do you think that none of the other language versions even the French with the 2003 date stamp, has added the Capital Punishment heading in?

 

[Ender]

All the evidence points to 2003 date being a date that the text was uploaded to the site.

That may well be, but the important point is that the document was prepared by the Vatican publishing house and, as it is the one we are taken to from the home page, it seems that this is the version the Vatican has chosen.

That strong evidence along with the lack of some capitals at the beginning of sentences and the lack of proper paragraphing and other line spacings, indicates that this is not an official version.

It is copyright by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana. That makes it an official version as they have the sole authority to publish documents for the Vatican.

Ender

 

[Cruciferi]

My official stance is that the death penalty is not necessary so long as the person can be captured and prevented from pursuing evil. Once the person is in custody then the issue is, of course, containment. Personally, I believe we can both keep the person alive and save the public. However, it must be noted that whatever would replace capital punishment could only be served if the individual is deemed so dangerous and evil that nothing can prevent them from somehow hurting people. My solution to stopping these misguided people would involve striking at the heart of what allows them to pursue evil. Namely, their brain.

If I had to decide what to do with Hitler, Stalin, or any other extremely evil and dangerous individual I would vie for them receiving a bilateral medial temporal lobectomy. This same procedure was done to a man who suffered from severe epilepsy. It destroyed any long-term memory formation and gave him amnesia. However, it also allowed him to live in a care institution with a certain amount of freedom and respect.

This idea has its own ethical considerations; however, I believe it’s superior to killing the poor person.

See the story of Henry Gustav Molaison: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Molaison

 

[Ender]

My official stance is that the death penalty is not necessary so long as the person can be captured and prevented from pursuing evil. Once the person is in custody then the issue is, of course, containment.

What do you believe the primary objective of punishment to be?

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

I’m arguing that we can read all of 2267 in a way where we don’t have to either compromise Church teaching or conclude the section got it wrong doctrinally.

Should say the above.