This condition may not mean what you think it does.It’s interesting to read that the US is up there with countries like China…North Korea…Iran…India…Arab Islamic countries…many third world African countries…while all of the civilized Catholic /Christian countries have done away with it.
*‘the Church in her theory and practice has maintained retributive as well as medicinal penalties’ and that ‘this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the above-mentioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time, and that a general and abiding validity cannot therefore be attributed to them. The reason is that the words of the sources and of the living teaching power do not refer to the specific content of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action (cf. particularly Romans 13:4), but rather to the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality. This, in turn, is as little determined by the conditions of time and culture as the nature of man and the human society decreed by nature itself’. *(Pius XII)No earlier pope ever said the death penalty was morally justified at this point in time, at least in the advanced nations.
As you say, the principles remain unchanged, and the principle in regard to capital punishment has always been this:*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pius X)I know this seems a little silly, but no more than invoking popes from the past to comment on a contemporary issue. Only the principles remain unchanged.
I deny that a pope has the authority to invent doctrine. That’s not one of the keys he was given.*As the First Vatican Council declared: “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (Cf. Denzinger, §1836) *Do you deny that the Pope has teaching authority?
Given that the catechism contains prudential judgments (at least on this subject) it is not authoritative in those areas.It is in the catechism, which is absolutely authoritative.
“Teaching” is an ambiguous word. In this case the discussion is whether the teaching is doctrinal or prudential.I said that to the extent there is a conflict, the Church’s teachings are the Church’s current teachings.
Well, I certainly disagree with your understanding of what our current pope said. Your opinion is certainly not authoritative.Pope Francis has made clear that the proper application of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty leads to the rejection of the death penalty. You can disagree with him and dissent from that teaching if you want, but you can’t say that is not authoritative Church teaching. It is.
No, but how nice it is or isnt should help deter them from wanting to go back.If this is the purpose, then this purpose is not defeated based on how nice the place is they are locked away in.
The church has never taught in favor of the death penalty…it does allow for the state to carry out capital punishment…so while your opinion in favor of the death penalty is not against church teaching at the same time it is not the official teaching of the church…the last three popes…the USCCB while not denying the right of the state to impose the death penalty have all spoken out in opposition to it…so your personal opinion is out of step with current church understanding…and you can’t claim you are standing firm on 2000 years of church teaching because while the church does not exclude recourse to it …at the same time it has never been in support of capital punishment… never was church teaching to begin with…I deny that a pope has the authority to invent doctrine. That’s not one of the keys he was given.*As the First Vatican Council declared: “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (Cf. Denzinger, §1836) *
Given that the catechism contains prudential judgments (at least on this subject) it is not authoritative in those areas.
“Teaching” is an ambiguous word. In this case the discussion is whether the teaching is doctrinal or prudential.
Well, I certainly disagree with your understanding of what our current pope said. Your opinion is certainly not authoritative.
Ender
What does it mean to “teach in favor” of it? The question is whether or not they recognize it as a legitimate option and a just penalty. I’m sure they never taught in “favor” of wars either, but they clearly recognize that some wars are just, and are in fact preferable options to the alternatives.The church has never taught in favor of the death penalty
Then we are agreed on the crux of the argument.…it does allow for the state to carry out capital punishment…
Again, what does this mean? The official teaching of the church, which it appeared that you just acknowledged, is that it is the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. That is my position and it is the official teaching of the church.…so while your opinion in favor of the death penalty is not against church teaching at the same time it is not the official teaching of the church.
Yes, they are personally opposed to its use at this time..the last three popes…the USCCB while not denying the right of the state to impose the death penalty have all spoken out in opposition to it.
No, my opinion on the matter of whether it *should *be used differs from theirs. Our understanding that it legitimately *may *be used is the same. There really is no “church understanding” on issues of judgment..so your personal opinion is out of step with current church understanding.
You don’t know this to be true, and you really shouldn’t assume that it is.*Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death, not as masters of men’s lives, but as ministers of God, as St. Paul saith. Because God willeth and commandeth that malefactors be punished and killed, when they deserve it, that good men may be safe, and live in peace. And for this purpose God hath given the sword into the hands of Princes and Rulers to do justice, in defending the good, and chastising the bad. And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. *(Catechism of Cardinal Bellarmine).and you can’t claim you are standing firm on 2000 years of church teaching because while the church does not exclude recourse to it …at the same time it has never been in support of capital punishment… never was church teaching to begin with…
On that, I simply do not agree. Here is the Church in America speaking on the subject.The “overwhelming voice of the church” is that capital punishment was, and still is, justifiable.
Ender
You said the purpose was separation from society. Deterrence is another purpose. I think this is a better idea in theory. In any case, in this context, deterrence is irrelevant. Once someone is locked away for life, recidivism is no longer a concern. As to prisons in general, people are very adaptable. History is proving our great incarceration experiment ineffectual and self-perpetuating.No, but how nice it is or isnt should help deter them from wanting to go back.
What I meant by “voice of the church” was not the opinions of individuals about the advisability of its use, but the doctrine that has been taught unchanged since the inception of the church. The voice in this case being the collective expressions of her popes, doctors, and fathers who have addressed the subject.The “overwhelming voice of the church” is that capital punishment was, and still is, justifiable.
Or do you mean the Church as in the people in the pews, the ones who also support contraception and gay marriage.On that, I simply do not agree. Here is the Church in America speaking on the subject.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/death-penalty-capital-punishment/
No one disputes that the sources you cite all opposed the use of capital punishment. What is disputed is whether their opposition constitutes doctrinal teaching, or personal judgment. To me, it is clearly the latter.I have shown my evidence, as if the Catechism, Pope Francis and St. John Paul the Great were not enough.
No one has questioned the doctrine. If this is what you meant, then the phrase “still justifiable” is simply not relevant as that is not doctrine, but application of doctrine., but the doctrine that has been taught unchanged since the inception of the church.
Here is the doctrine: the state has the moral right to employ capital punishment.No one has questioned the doctrine. If this is what you meant, then the phrase “still justifiable” is simply not relevant as that is not doctrine, but application of doctrine.
Here is the doctrine: the state has the moral right to employ capital punishment.
Whether or not it should be used in a particular circumstance is the application of that doctrine, and while we are obligated to accept the doctrine we are allowed to form our own opinions on its application.
We are not obligated to accept the judgments of others on its application, even if those are the judgments of Magisterium. This is surely what Cardinal Ratzinger meant when he wrote (letter to Cardinal McCarrick):
*”if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.”
Ender*
Hi Ender , not to interfere with your concern about receiving Communion.
Just that Pope Benedict also encouraged this :
Pope said he hopes that their deliberations “will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty.”
m.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-benedict-end-the-death-penalty#.VtHI9xkn7fo
There is absolutely no doubt that the last three Popes have fervently opposed the death Penalty, as do I. However there is also no doubt that the Church does now and always has allowed for the Death Penalty.Hi Ender , not to interfere with your concern about receiving Communion.
Just that Pope Benedict also encouraged this :
Pope said he hopes that their deliberations “will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty.”
m.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-benedict-end-the-death-penalty#.VtHI9xkn7fo
Yes, I recognize that he was of the opinion that capital punishment should be eliminated. I merely point out that that was his personal judgment about its usefulness, not his doctrinal judgment about its validity.Hi Ender , not to interfere with your concern about receiving Communion.
Just that Pope Benedict also encouraged this :
Pope said he hopes that their deliberations “will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty.”
Since the Church has stated that it’s just use is a matter of obedience to the 5th Commandment, that would seem to be a teaching in favor of it.The church has never taught in favor of the death penalty…
Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.
The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
I would claim that your statement is not true. A criminal that is ‘locked away for life’ can still pose a danger to other inmates, the guards, or even, in cases of criminal leaders, still order harm to society via outside associates.I think this is a better idea in theory. In any case, in this context, deterrence is irrelevant. **Once someone is locked away for life, recidivism is no longer a concern. **
Recidivism is returning to prison after being released. If one is not released, they cannot return. I was answering a specific question. If one is locked up for life, being locked up longer for a crime committed inside a prison is also not a deterrent. Again, I was answering a point.I would claim that your statement is not true.
Recidivism: a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior; especially : relapse into criminal behaviorRecidivism is returning to prison after being released. If one is not released, they cannot return. I was answering a specific question. If one is locked up for life, being locked up longer for a crime committed inside a prison is also not a deterrent. Again, I was answering a point.
I see.There is absolutely no doubt that the last three Popes have fervently opposed the death Penalty, as do I. However there is also no doubt that the Church does now and always has allowed for the Death Penalty.
From a practical matter where this usually comes up is when Catholic Democrats use one canidates support of the death penalty to try to rationalize their support of the opposing pro-abortion canidate. There is, of course, no moral equivalence between the two. The other place you often see the Churchs teaching on the death penalty distorted is by those Catholics who support homosexual marriage or abortion. They claim that since the Church changed their teaching about the death penalty they will likewise change their teaching of homosexuality or abortion.
Yes,we ve already explained each other what we understand,I guess.Yes, I recognize that he was of the opinion that capital punishment should be eliminated. I merely point out that that was his personal judgment about its usefulness, not his doctrinal judgment about its validity.
Ender