Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[Ender]

The future of the Catholic church in the modern world is probably going to be jeopardised if the church keeps claiming sole, exclusive access to God.

Let’s be clear that we haven’t been talking about access to God. As far as believing that it is the church Christ instituted, it wouldn’t have any future at all if it didn’t believe that.

They are a code of rules drawn up in the past - and even a long time AFTER Jesus was alive. He did not make them…his followers who lived decades and centuries after him did.

It is certainly true that what the church teaches is more than can be extracted solely from the Gospels. The church, which existed for 300 years before the Bible was defined, does not limit its teaching solely to scripture, but includes the Tradition passed down from the disciples, the apostles, and those who knew them. What is important to recognize is that these are not rules drawn up in the same way as, say, the US Constitution. Church doctrines are based on revelation and the interpretation of what God is trying to teach us.

Modern educated people in our multi-cultural world will not be able to carry on accepting this ‘divine intervention’ only for one particular faith. In any case, the interpretation of these sets of rules are continuously argued and debated within Catholics.

Some things are appropriate for Catholics to debate, some issues are settled and are not open for debate.

Silencing their arguments and debates, making people toe the narrow line of a myriad rules set in stone whatever, and claiming to have the only hot-line to God…is what is going to make the church and Christianity LOOK a fraud.

Again, non-Catholics are free to believe whatever they like, but for Catholics is it simply irrational to reject what she teaches, despite the fact that huge numbers of Catholics do exactly that.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

Again, non-Catholics are free to believe whatever they like, but for Catholics is it simply irrational to reject what she teaches, despite the fact that huge numbers of Catholics do exactly that.

Ender

Not necessarily. It depends on whether they reject a tradition or an infallible doctrine. The tradition of the Church for many years was no profane music during liturgy. Another tradition was that women are to wear headcovering. It would be unseemly if the rejection of these teachings was considered to be irrational. AFAIK, the acceptance of the death penalty is not an infallible ex cathedra doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Kelt]

Let’s be clear that we haven’t been talking about access to God. As far as believing that it is the church Christ instituted, it wouldn’t have any future at all if it didn’t believe that.
It is certainly true that what the church teaches is more than can be extracted solely from the Gospels. The church, which existed for 300 years before the Bible was defined, does not limit its teaching solely to scripture, but includes the Tradition passed down from the disciples, the apostles, and those who knew them. What is important to recognize is that these are not rules drawn up in the same way as, say, the US Constitution. Church doctrines are based on revelation and the interpretation of what God is trying to teach us.
Some things are appropriate for Catholics to debate, some issues are settled and are not open for debate.
Again, non-Catholics are free to believe whatever they like, but for Catholics is it simply irrational to reject what she teaches, despite the fact that huge numbers of Catholics do exactly that.

Ender

They always have, haven’t they? It’s what the church fathers who set down the rules did - debated… But then they settled. And everyone else’s voice was silenced - for the sake of the cohesion of the institution. And power. Surely it’s irrational to keep following rules - some of which are proved to have faulty foundations. I can’t think of anything further from the Man Jesus. It’s almost like not seeing the wood for the trees - the thick forest of unarguable dogmas. Perhaps Pope Francis is trying to get closer to the founder of the religion rather than the distortion of centuries…

 

[philipl]

I will always support both the death penalty and life sentences. I think we should put more criminals in prison. The more in jail the less than can damage me.

 

[Ender]

But are you saying a person who thinks the war is just is objectively wrong?

I don’t believe the same act can be moral in one instance and objectively (intrinsically) wrong in another. The fact that an act (in this case declaring war) is not intrinsically wrong does not keep the act of declaring war on Canada from being wrong, not because it intrinsically wrong but because it clearly fails the criteria for just wars. The analogy would extend to capital punishment except that the choice of using it or not - based on a judgment of its affect on society - would never be so obvious.

At least I know I’ve said the common good isn’t limited to physical protection.

Perhaps so, but 2267 barely mentions the common good and discusses the use of capital punishment solely in terms of its necessity for protection.

But it’s not only about physical protection. The fact that some people are mislead is irrelevant.

You’ll have a much harder time sustaining that position than will those who contend 2267 limits capital punishment to protection specifically, not the common good generally.“The dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.” (JPII, Evangelium Vitae)

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

I’ve seen this discrepancy before. Your version of the catechism (from the Vatican web site) is different than mine (also from the Vatican web site). I’d like to know how you get to yours from the Vatican home page. Here’s how you get to mine:
Vatican home page
Enter in the search window
Select the first entry on the results page

The copyright date on mine is 11/04/2003. What is it on yours?

Ender

 

[Ender]

When CCC2267 speaks of someones capacity to ‘redeem’ themselves it is referring to his capacity to redress the disorder to the community that he caused by his crime.

In redeeming himself a person does nothing whatever to redress the disorder caused by his crime. By his crime a person incurs a debt, and that debt is paid only by his punishment, not his redemption.

[2266] clearly states that the disorder needing redressing is the disorder to the communal life of men.

It states no such thing, clearly or otherwise; what the church actually teaches is a good deal deeper.For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong.

‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. (Pius XII)
Ender

 

[Ender]

As Ender well knows, the discussion regarding the common good here is not in relation to it being ‘restricted merely to security’…

It is true (as I have said numerous times) that the common good is not limited to physical security, nor have I ever suggested otherwise. What I have been pointing out is that 2267 mentions the common good only in passing and focuses almost exclusively on physical protection. It is protection,not the common good, that it uses as the measure of the necessity of capital punishment.

… but in his belief that it includes human laws ability to effect divine retribution.

Once you get an idea in your head it seems impossible to dislodge it. You invented this belief out of whole cloth. That it is not based on anything I have said should be evident from two facts: you can’t find any place I’ve actually said or implied it, and I reject the assertion whenever you trot it out. Just like your assertion in the first citation above, you attribute to me things I have never said. You have a similarly creative interpretation of church documents.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Not necessarily. It depends on whether they reject a tradition or an infallible doctrine. The tradition of the Church for many years was no profane music during liturgy. Another tradition was that women are to wear headcovering. It would be unseemly if the rejection of these teachings was considered to be irrational.

There are various levels of church teachings: infallible doctrine, ordinary doctrine, prudential judgments, and disciplines. A discipline is something the church has instituted and she can therefore change it as she deems fitting. Prudential judgments are to be given serious consideration but ultimately we are not obligated to assent to them. Doctrines, however, are very different. By rejecting a doctrine we question the foundations on which the church is based, that she is in fact capable of discerning the word of God. If we doubt she has that ability then it makes no sense to be Catholic.

AFAIK, the acceptance of the death penalty is not an infallible ex cathedra doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

To my knowledge there have only been two ex cathedra statements in church history. This does not mean, however, that she has only two infallible doctrines as that is clearly not true. The question rather is whether capital punishment has been taught infallibly. This is exactly analogous to the question of women priests. That doctrine has never been declared infallible. It has, however, been recognized as having been taught infallibly. Capital punishment has not been officially recognized as an infallible teaching. On the other hand neither have most of the church’s other doctrines. The question is formally resolved by the church only when the issue becomes publicly questioned to the point where resolution is necessary.

Ender

 

[anon87900350]

I agree with the “what instead, then” about life imprisonment. Are you supposed to put the child molesters and murderers back on the streets while they are still young enough to hurt others?

Parole doesn’t work very well. Not everyone learns their lesson in prison. I’m not arguing the pope, I’m just really curious what an alternative would be?

Death penalty is an abomination, and I agree with the Pope 100%. Life imprisonment is unfair; but like you, I don’t see any other alternative for the US justice system.With their crimes on their permanent record, most don’t find jobs which lead to homelessness, frustration, and depression; which in turn forces them to continue their previous lifestyles. Prisons should become a place of remediation, not punishment. Only then can you consider stopping the practice of life imprisonment. If prisons could put more money behind fostering spirituality by assigning each prisoner a spiritual director and a personal therapist, think of all the good it can do…separation of church and state won’t allow for that though… I think there should be Christian-based prisons, and regular prisons just like catholic private schools, and state schools. Prisoners should be given the choice to attend either of them.

 

[CrossofChrist]

I don’t believe the same act can be moral in one instance and objectively (intrinsically) wrong in another. The fact that an act (in this case declaring war) is not intrinsically wrong does not keep the act of declaring war on Canada from being wrong, not because it intrinsically wrong but because it clearly fails the criteria for just wars. The analogy would extend to capital punishment except that the choice of using it or not - based on a judgment of its affect on society - would never be so obvious.

Maybe it’s not that obvious. But the Church has been very clear in her opposition to its use.

Perhaps so, but 2267 barely mentions the common good and discusses the use of capital punishment solely in terms of its necessity for protection.

We’ve discussed this in the thread already.

You’ll have a much harder time sustaining that position than will those who contend 2267 limits capital punishment to protection specifically, not the common good generally.“The dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.” (JPII, Evangelium Vitae)

Just to clarify, that quote is from a Mass in St. Louis.

Anyway, why couldn’t improvements in the penal system also contribute to helping defend the common good? It helps make it easier to recognize that, yes, the people who committed the crimes still retain their human dignity, and therefore they are people who are capable of reforming their lives no matter how bad the crime they committed was. IOW, it helps show and therefore defend the dignity of the human person.

Not to say that they therefore have an inherent right to life. A murderer has lost that right. But an improved penal system can still show the dignity of the human person.

I’ve seen this discrepancy before. Your version of the catechism (from the Vatican web site) is different than mine (also from the Vatican web site). I’d like to know how you get to yours from the Vatican home page. Here’s how you get to mine:
Vatican home page
Enter in the search window
Select the first entry on the results page

The copyright date on mine is 11/04/2003. What is it on yours?

Ender

It is the 3rd entry in the results page after typing in “catechism”. The copyright is 2009 (at the bottom of the page).

 

[LongingSoul]

You’ll have a much harder time sustaining that position than will those who contend 2267 limits capital punishment to protection specifically, not the common good generally.
“The dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.” (JPII, Evangelium Vitae)

To respect the dignity of the human person is critical to the common good it is true. The whole context of the Churchs stance for abolition is to redress the culture of death. People these days have a mistaken belief about what constitutes a ‘person’ and an exaggerated concept of their own rights at the expense of all other considerations. The visual alone of a man being killed in front of their eyes as a mark of power has a psychological/spiritual effect on creatures. Just watch animals in the wild after prey. Blood excites blood lust and occultish desires in human beings. Unless killing another is directly related to protection of the whole group, mans animal nature is engaged supernaturally. I remember Pope St John Paul II while not condemning the execution of Bin Laden, made special mention of the reaction of many Americans in public places. It was evident that a proper sense of justice was lost to them.

I’ve seen this discrepancy before. Your version of the catechism (from the Vatican web site) is different than mine (also from the Vatican web site). I’d like to know how you get to yours from the Vatican home page. Here’s how you get to mine:
Vatican home page
Enter in the search window
Select the first entry on the results page

The copyright date on mine is 11/04/2003. What is it on yours?

Ender

It is the 3rd entry in the results page after typing in “catechism”. The copyright is 2009 (at the bottom of the page).

It amuses me the way Ender clings doggedly to this first roughly drafted, badly edited, truncated, archived Intratext version of the Catechism. It is obviously not the official link but it contains errors that he finds a little more helpful to his agenda. It doesn’t include either Pope St JPIIs Apostolic Letter or Apostolic Constitution that precede every official catechism published.

More telling is that in 2267 where all official catechisms reference JPIIs Evangelium Vitae in reference number *68… Enders odd version completely skips it as a link and moves reference number *68 onto the next point. That leaves one less reference number at the end of the section on the Ten Commandments. Why has Evangelium Vitae not been referenced in the way in Enders version? Seems like it is trying to dismiss EV as having any teaching authority of note.

Check out the two versions of 2267 and ref. no. 68.

Enders version… vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

The Churchs official Catechism… vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Your reference is as dodgy as udders on a bull, Ender. Why do you persist in using it?

 

[Ender]

Just to clarify, that quote is from a Mass in St. Louis.

Clearly my source didn’t do his homework. This quote is from EV (27).* Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.*
Again, the emphasis is specifically on the suppression of crime, not the more general concept of the common good.

Anyway, why couldn’t improvements in the penal system also contribute to helping defend the common good?

A lot of things contribute to the common good, but neither EV nor the catechism discussed those “other things”. The focus in both cases is on “repress[ing] crime” (CCC) and “suppressing crime” (EV). It is not on the common good or those things which contribute to it. They target the prevention of future crime.

It is the 3rd entry in the results page after typing in “catechism”. The copyright is 2009 (at the bottom of the page).

I’m sorry, this isn’t enough. Where do I start? Where do I type in “catechism”?

Ender

 

[Ender]

It amuses me the way Ender clings doggedly to this first roughly drafted, badly edited, truncated, archived Intratext version of the Catechism. It is obviously not the official link but it contains errors that he finds a little more helpful to his agenda. It doesn’t include either Pope St JPIIs Apostolic Letter or Apostolic Constitution that precede every official catechism published.

More telling is that in 2267 where all official catechisms reference JPIIs Evangelium Vitae in reference number *68… Enders odd version completely skips it as a link and moves reference number *68 onto the next point. That leaves one less reference number at the end of the section on the Ten Commandments. Why has Evangelium Vitae not been referenced in the way in Enders version? Seems like it is trying to dismiss EV as having any teaching authority of note.

Check out the two versions of 2267 and ref. no. 68.

Enders version… vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

The Churchs official Catechism… vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Your reference is as dodgy as udders on a bull, Ender. Why do you persist in using it?

Your comments are disgraceful. The reason I mentioned to CrossofChrist that I had seen the discrepancy between versions of the catechism before is that you and I had this discussion perhaps a year ago. Apparently you dismissed all I said and simply invented the most insulting explanation you could concoct. Not that it will matter to you but so that others can understand the full extent of your distortion let me repeat what I said before about where “my” version comes from.

Start at the Vatican home page. www.vatican.va
Select English (upper right) w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html
Select Resource Library (lower center) vatican.va/archive/index.htm
Select Catechism of the Catholic Church vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
Select English vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

“My” version is linked to directly from the Vatican home page, which reasonably suggests this is the version the Vatican has selected. At the bottom of the first page is this citation:Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana
[2003 11 04]
That is the official mark of the Vatican Publishing House which is responsible for all editions of the catechism.

I have said all of this to you before; there is nothing new here. Other readers can decide for themselves what kind of person would invent the charges you made even though I have refuted them before and you know the truth of the matter.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I’m sorry, this isn’t enough. Where do I start? Where do I type in “catechism”?

Never mind, I found it. What it appears to me is that the copyright of 2009 you alluded to is when the Charles Borromeo site was granted the right to post the catechism on its website. I don’t believe that is the copyright date of the document itself.Copyright permission for posting of the english translation of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH on the Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site was granted by Amministrazione Del Patrimonio Della Sede Apostolica, case number 130389.
If you look at the top of that page you will see a picture of the actual catechism; this is the official 1997 version. If you look at the hard copy version of that book it will appear just as you describe it. There is a Legitimate Defense subheading that includes sections 2263-2267, and there is no Capital Punishment subheading.

In the later (2003) version on the Vatican web site, this has changed. Legitimate Defense includes only sections 2263-2265; sections 2266-2267 are now under the new subheading Capital Punishment.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Your comments are disgraceful. The reason I mentioned to CrossofChrist that I had seen the discrepancy between versions of the catechism before is that you and I had this discussion perhaps a year ago. Apparently you dismissed all I said and simply invented the most insulting explanation you could concoct. Not that it will matter to you but so that others can understand the full extent of your distortion let me repeat what I said before about where “my” version comes from.

Start at the Vatican home page. www.vatican.va
Select English (upper right) w2.vatican.va/content/vatican/en.html
Select Resource Library (lower center) vatican.va/archive/index.htm
Select Catechism of the Catholic Church vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm
Select English vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

“My” version is linked to directly from the Vatican home page, which reasonably suggests this is the version the Vatican has selected. At the bottom of the first page is this citation:Copyright © Libreria Editrice Vaticana
[2003 11 04]
That is the official mark of the Vatican Publishing House which is responsible for all editions of the catechism.

I have said all of this to you before; there is nothing new here. Other readers can decide for themselves what kind of person would invent the charges you made even though I have refuted them before and you know the truth of the matter.

Ender

Your indignance and offense are unscholarly rubbish. At a very quick glance the archived text you continue to call ‘the latest version’ of the Catechism, is obviously an unofficial cobbled together thing put up by ‘Intratext staff’. It excludes Pope St JPII’s Apostolic letter and Apostolic Constitution which are part of every official copy. It adds a subheading of CAPITAL PUNISHMENT separating the section from the official LEGITIMATE DEFENSE heading. Not even the Latin text in the archive has that let alone all the other language versions. It excludes the official source reference 68 (JPIIs Evangelium Vitae) as a reference citation altogether and just moves 68 onto the next reference. Interesting that.

I don’t even feel any need to go on. If anyone else is bothered, they can check those anomolies themselves but I think even blind Freddy will see that it is not an ‘official new version’ of the Catechism

 

[Ender]

I think even blind Freddy will see that it is not an ‘official new version’ of the Catechism

If blind Freddy can find his way to the Vatican home page he may come to a different conclusion. It requires the suspension of disbelief to suggest that a document linked to from the Vatican home page is anything other than an official version.

I don’t even feel any need to go on.

I am pleased to hear that.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

Clearly my source didn’t do his homework. This quote is from EV (27).* Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.*

Here is EV 27:

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.

OTOH…

“…the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.” --Pope John Paul II, Mass in St. Louis, MO, (January 27, 1999)

But this really isn’t essential to the discussion. Just trying to help out.

A lot of things contribute to the common good, but neither EV nor the catechism discussed those “other things”. The focus in both cases is on “repress[ing] crime” (CCC) and “suppressing crime” (EV). It is not on the common good or those things which contribute to it. They target the prevention of future crime.

Let’s go with EV 27 for now…

In EV 27, maybe the death penalty is seen by some as a method for legitimate defense. But assuming that not using it would better show the dignity of the human person for various reasons and promote the common good, something concluded using prudence, then if “Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform,” it makes the death penalty unnecessary.

The assumption of course is that not using the death penalty in the concrete conditions of the time would better help the common good if there are ways to suppress crime and physical protection can be achieved without the death penalty. From this starting point the following can be interpreted: *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. *

When later on in 2267 “suppression of the offender” comes up in the same context as EV 27, what are we to make of it? (Assuming we have the same assumptions from before.) Well, if the state can effectively “repress the crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it”, then it appears the situations where the death penalty is “absolutely necessary” to protect the common good would be “very rare”. Especially since the common good is best served by not executing people according to a large majority in the Church today.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Never mind, I found it. What it appears to me is that the copyright of 2009 you alluded to is when the Charles Borromeo site was granted the right to post the catechism on its website. I don’t believe that is the copyright date of the document itself.Copyright permission for posting of the english translation of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH on the Saint Charles Borromeo Catholic Church web site was granted by Amministrazione Del Patrimonio Della Sede Apostolica, case number 130389.
If you look at the top of that page you will see a picture of the actual catechism; this is the official 1997 version. If you look at the hard copy version of that book it will appear just as you describe it. There is a Legitimate Defense subheading that includes sections 2263-2267, and there is no Capital Punishment subheading.

In the later (2003) version on the Vatican web site, this has changed. Legitimate Defense includes only sections 2263-2265; sections 2266-2267 are now under the new subheading Capital Punishment.

Ender

Ok.

But that still doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be part of “legitimate defense”. Perhaps the distinction was made in 2003 so that it (i.e capital punishment) wouldn’t be taken to mean something like self-defense where the killing of the aggressor is not intended. Clearly in capital punishment that is intended.

It’s not like the changes made in the catechism (and this only in a title) are to be held in opposition to each other.

 

[Ender]

In EV 27, maybe the death penalty is seen by some as a method for legitimate defense.

There are two arguments here. One concerns the practical objective of security. If one believed (or it could be shown) that capital punishment reduced crime in direct proportion to its frequency of use, that would argue for a significant increase in its application. Surely the argument that it shouldn’t be used because it isn’t needed for preventing future crimes contains within it the recognition that, if it did prevent future crimes it ought to be used. This is a social science question, however, not a moral one.

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.

But assuming that not using it would better show the dignity of the human person for various reasons and promote the common good, something concluded using prudence, then if “Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform,” it makes the death penalty unnecessary.

This is a long way of saying “If it’s better not to use it we shouldn’t use it.” Well, yes, and I have always accepted that. This is unquestionably a prudential question, however, again there is no moral choice involved. It is simply accepting that we should do what we believe is best.

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.

The assumption of course is that not using the death penalty in the concrete conditions of the time would better help the common good if there are ways to suppress crime and physical protection can be achieved without the death penalty.

If you assume that not using the death penalty is better for the common good then you would not use it even if physical protection could not be achieved.

From this starting point the following can be interpreted: 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.

This may all be true as well but it is clear that morality is not based on public opinion.

When later on in 2267 “suppression of the offender” comes up in the same context as EV 27, what are we to make of it? (Assuming we have the same assumptions from before.) Well, if the state can effectively “repress the crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it”, then it appears the situations where the death penalty is “absolutely necessary” to protect the common good would be “very rare”. Especially since the common good is best served by not executing people according to a large majority in the Church today.

If you start out by assuming your approach is the better one the arguments you provide are little more than rationalizations of a choice you’ve already made. 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.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It’s not like the changes made in the catechism (and this only in a title) are to be held in opposition to each other.

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