Question about the death penalty

[pnewton]

I must admit, I am starting to wonder if the neurons in your brain even fire sequentially.

Ray,

Maybe you need to move to California, get some sun and melt your neurons a little.

For me, it is just tiring. I feel very bad for all three of you. Not because we disagree, but because of what you are missing. Obedience to the Church is a form of willful submission to God. Like any other leap of faith, it has some tremendous spiritual rewards.

You overstep your bounds with this garbage. You have no authority or right to accuse anyone for not being obedient to the Church. You continue to beg the question. Chase your own tail, but keep your teeth to yourself.

Obedience? Name one order the Church has given to all Catholics we have disobeyed. The latest document by the USCCB explicitly acknowledges the right to dissent on their opinion.

 

[Ender]

I believe that civil penalties (jail, execution, etc.) for attempting to worship in a faith other than Catholicism were “unjust.” Would you agree?

Yes.

I apply this to the death penalty, not in a “justice vs. safety” context, but rather stating that Mother Church now sees the death penalty as inappropriate except in cases in which the death penalty is “the only effective way to defend human life against the unjust aggressor.”

I can probably accept this explanation with the caveat that"inappropriate" is a prudential term, not a moral one.

But, based on newer, authoritative Church documents which clearly (though not explicitly) refute Church previous authoritative Church documents,

We are agreed that 2267 clearly refutes doctrine the Church consistently taught until 1995.

it seems clear to me that the Church has refuted (though not explicitly) the use of capital punishment for reasons other than safety. Thusly, its use for other reasons is wrong/inappropriate/unjust.

No. Inappropriate perhaps but not unjust. That question was not even addressed by EV or 2267 so it cannot be assumed to have been answered.

Ender

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

this point that the “powers-that-be” are appointed by God has been accepted by the Church since Paul first stated it. Are you claiming that it has been revoked by JPII?

Given the circumstances, it would certainly have been within his power to do so.

I don’t think you have a real understanding of a pope’s authority if you feel they can simply revoke a teaching of St. Paul’s.

The present Catechism, which relies heavily on JPII’s encyclical, is wholly compatible with past teaching.

The present Catechism relies completely on JPII’s encyclical because there is no past teaching to support it. Neither 2267 or EV/56 contains any reference to a previous Church document to support this position.

Someone accused me of being ‘sola catechism’, but you appear to be ‘sola fragment’, snippets of teachings with no context. The Church tells us this is not a proper or rational way to view our faith:

This is not argument, it is evasion. I am prepared to address anything you quote; you are clearly not prepared to address my citations.

Good, so we agree on the purpose. At the time (nearly 500 years ago), death sentences served the purpose. Now, although it is still theoretically permissible, the Church teaches that the purpose is better served by non lethal means:

Nowhere prior to EV does the Church even hint that the primary purpose of the law was mere protection. Nor does the Church teach that this is so now. This is part of what we are debating; this is simply another unanswered problem created by 2267.

As we have already seen, Ecc. Councils identify life as the central purpose of the law.

Actually, I would have thought salvation was a more important purpose. It has been pointed out that as societies become more secular they become less supportive of the death penalty and this may be due to the fact that secular societies are preoccupied with life while Christian ones were focused on salvation.

Ender

 

[Ender]

FYI - there is currently a discussion of the death penalty going on at the blog at InsideCatholic.com. They touch on several of the things we have discussed here but it’s still interesting to read (and the tone is a lot less confrontational.)

Ender

 

[Ender]

"The human being is entitled to such rights {to life}, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition…

Every phase, every condition. You’ve already stated that you value some lives more or less based on your perception of their spiritual state. Which, by the way, is generally considered a sin.

If your interpretation is correct it would repudiate what Pius XII said: *“Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.” *I am inclined to believe the pope had it right and that your interpretation is … not.

The Church teaches that we cannot look into the hearts and minds of others, nor can we presume to know the mind of God.

We don’t need to look into someone’s heart to be able to discern that his actions were deeply immoral. Besides, if that was really both necessary and impossible it would rule out all punishment, not just the death penalty.

Ender

Hey … where is everybody?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Hey … where is everybody?

I had Oracle training all this week as we are migrating to that, so my mental reserves are drained, and you’ve been holding down the fort just fine.

It seems pretty simply to reconcile Pius XII statement with JP II; that though we are all given certain rights by nature of being human, we yes still possess the free will to give up those rights. Of course, that presumes you start with existing Church teaching when interpreting later documents, rather than reading backwards then insisting that anything disagreeable to an individuals interpretation that isn’t reiterated must be presumed to both no longer apply and actually amount to disobedience (on only their say-so based on yet another bit of reading backwards that avoids the limits Vatican I placed on the authority of theological innovations) if one tries to interpret in context.

 

[Ender]

CCC 2267 references CCC 2306 next to the line in question

There is no reference in 2267 to 2306. An inferred connection is not a reference.

Regarding 2306: *“Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, … bear witness to evangelical charity …” *There is no command here that one is obligated to renounce either.

*"… provided they do so without harming the rights and **obligations of **other men and societies." *2266 declares that the state has the obligation to apply a punishment proportional to the crime. This section certainly would not deny the state the right to execute a criminal.

And, for further clarification, CCC 2298 … Which directly references 2267

We have a different understanding of what constitutes a direct reference. I’m pretty sure it means an explicit citation (as 2267 cites JPII, EV 56) or footnote (as 2266 points to Luke).

Re 2298: I really think the authors here were referring to something other than executions when they denounced “cruel practices.” There is nothing particularly painful about a modern execution (even a hanging, if done properly); however unjust, unfair, or unnecessary it may be it’s a stretch to claim that it is cruel in the sense in which they used the term.

"the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy" I have no problem with this; as a general statement it is clearly true. Are you arguing that it is a requirement of mercy that no one should be executed if he can be “safely” incarcerated?

I will pray for you.

Thank you.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

"the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy" I have no problem with this; as a general statement it is clearly true.

We I read this I wondered if there is any practical way to implement this in law, other than have the victim request clemency. Otherwise, how can this be implemented. Base punishment on how sorry a criminal acts when caught? That’s a real bright idea. Some of these guys could give acting lessons for soap operas.

 

[helenhelen]

Am I wrong to think that Jesus NEVER said that it is alright to take a life? If He did, will someone please point out to me exactly where He said it? I thought He preached love.

 

[Filius99993]

Am I wrong to think that Jesus NEVER said that it is alright to take a life? If He did, will someone please point out to me exactly where He said it? I thought He preached love.

Yes, real love, of course. Remember: Hope, Faith, and Love.

 

[pnewton]

Am I wrong to think that Jesus NEVER said that it is alright to take a life?

Exodus 11:4-6. There are many other citations in Leviticus and Joshua.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Exodus 11:4-6. There are many other citations in Leviticus and Joshua.

I think she was following that same "if it was not specifically repeated by *{insert name here} saying {insert speciific phrasing} then *it must be presumed to be wrong / repealed / etc.

However, that glosses over the exchange Jesus had with Pilate in John 19:10-11,where Jesus directly states that the power Pilate mentioned having (to crucify or to release) was given to Pilate from above. Then there is also Romans 13:1-4 by Paul about the roles of those serving the state to carry out an execution. .

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Am I wrong to think that Jesus NEVER said that it is alright to take a life? If He did, will someone please point out to me exactly where He said it? I thought He preached love.

You are correct Jesus not only perserved life he even rebuked the Jewish customs which would have taken life

Exodus 11:4-6. There are many other citations in Leviticus and Joshua.

As in the case of the audlterous woman Jesus refused to follow the Jewish customs of Leviticus

I think she was following that same "if it was not specifically repeated by *{insert name here} saying {insert speciific phrasing} then *it must be presumed to be wrong / repealed / etc.

However, that glosses over the exchange Jesus had with Pilate in John 19:10-11,where Jesus directly states that the power Pilate mentioned having (to crucify or to release) was given to Pilate from above. Then there is also Romans 13:1-4 by Paul about the roles of those serving the state to carry out an execution. .

Actually in John 19:10-11 Pilate makes the statement not Jesus
In Romans 13:1-4 Paul speaks of civil authority only being minor and in line with God’s authority this is Paul speaking on the base of Natural Law. Paul is actually saying do what is right not because of man’s government but because God wants you to. He adds governments are just when they do what is right (aligned with God) However the reader would be wise to known Paul was often in trouble with the government while speaking. Eventually Paul was killed by the government and for what crime?

 

[pnewton]

As in the case of the audlterous woman Jesus refused to follow the Jewish customs of Leviticus

I know. I was just asking the answering the questions. However, it was not Jewish customs to which I referred, but the Mosaic Law given directly by God, but given specifically to the nation of Israel at that time.

 

[Ender]

Am I wrong to think that Jesus NEVER said that it is alright to take a life? If He did, will someone please point out to me exactly where He said it? I thought He preached love.

It is not our personal interpretation of scripture that matters; “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God … has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church” (Dei verbum 10). It has been the consistent doctrine of the Church that capital punishment is justifiable in certain situations. Recently the Church has added the prudential teaching that those situations are rare or non-existent. We should stick to debating what the Church says on this issue and not get sidetracked. There is no way to resolve differences in personal interpretation of scripture - as the fragmentation of Protestant churches amply demonstrates.

Ender

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I know. I was just asking the answering the questions. However, it was not Jewish customs to which I referred, but the Mosaic Law given directly by God, but given specifically to the nation of Israel at that time.

I understand the the church to teach we are not obligated to Mosaic Law just the 10 commandment section

reference to Mosais Laws en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_mitzvot notice there are several we do not follow

It is not our personal interpretation of scripture that matters; “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God … has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church” (Dei verbum 10). It has been the consistent doctrine of the Church that capital punishment is justifiable in certain situations. Recently the Church has added the prudential teaching that those situations are rare or non-existent. We should stick to debating what the Church says on this issue and not get sidetracked. There is no way to resolve differences in personal interpretation of scripture - as the fragmentation of Protestant churches amply demonstrates.

Ender

Wow could you show the part where the" teaching office of the Church" called the judgement pruential? btw her comment is right on the mark, Jesus did redirect much of the old laws see the 613 Mitzvot listed above

 

[Yerusalyim]

My opposition to the death penalty in the United States is that it discriminates against those without the funds to get a good attorney.

 

[Filius99993]

My opposition to the death penalty in the United States is that it discriminates against those without the funds to get a good attorney.

If it did, then O.J. Simpson would not be living…

 

[pnewton]

My opposition to the death penalty in the United States is that it discriminates against those without the funds to get a good attorney.

It is a valid point that should be addressed. I know here the death penalty cases where the defendent is indigent always gets awwarded two attorneys who are certified to try them and funds for any research or detective work needed. We do not skimp on funds for capital defense.