Question about the death penalty

[Ray_Scheel]

So why not the same degree of variance with the “common good” and “overreaction?” Is it not still a matter of “interpretation” as so many here have repeated over and over?

I would refer you back to the source material provided in post 46 as far as the basis in formal Church teaching of such limitations to the justification of the State’s authority on this issue. There is Church teaching directly addressing this issue, reiterated as recently as 1952, that significantly limits the scope of personal interpretation on those particular points if one does not simply dismiss those statements with no comment at all (or possibly even a position that insisting on considering anything prior to EV constituted a rejection of two popes and Vatican II). Again, it is is no more appropriate to ignore those sources in order to construct an exaggeration of the position of one’s opponents than it is ignore those teachings in order to advocate one’s own position.

I never said that those poster are arguing for its increase. However, the logic they utilize makes the point for them.

In which case you are either utilizing the “slippery slope” logical error and/or the “worst possible interpretation” form of ad hominem. In both cases you would be (apparently admittedly) ignoring the fact that those advocating continued use of the DP are relying on the entirety of Church teaching about Natural Law for limitations to the State’s legitimate use of the DP in order to be able be attribute that position to them, which introduces another logical flaw, that of deliberate error of fact.

Trying to pin such statements on phantom posters in other threads is also a non-starter, Ender, pwneton, and/or I have made our way to every DP thread here in recent memory, and the exaggerated position you present has not been explicity endorsed by anyone with a persistent presence in those threads.

I will simply reiterate that the current state of affairs in our country is very much at odds with the interpretations of our Holy Father, our episcopal conference, and all episcopal conferences that have taught on the subject.

On exactly what basis are you presuming that they have the authority to TEACH that without making a de facto presumption that the authority to actually make that determination no longer belongs to the State?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

… I will simply reiterate that the current state of affairs in our country is very much at odds with the interpretations of our Holy Father, our episcopal conference, and all episcopal conferences that have taught on the subject.

…

On exactly what basis are you presuming that they have the authority to TEACH that without making a de facto presumption that the authority to actually make that determination no longer belongs to the State?

in reference to this question here is a source
deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6

 

[frankadams]

I would refer you back to the source material provided in post 46 as far as the basis in formal Church teaching of such limitations to the justification of the State’s authority on this issue. There is Church teaching directly addressing this issue, reiterated as recently as 1952, that significantly limits the scope of personal interpretation on those particular points if one does not simply dismiss those statements with no comment at all (or possibly even a position that insisting on considering anything prior to EV constituted a rejection of two popes and Vatican II). Again, it is is no more appropriate to ignore those sources in order to construct an exaggeration of the position of one’s opponents than it is ignore those teachings in order to advocate one’s own position.

In which case you are either utilizing the “slippery slope” logical error and/or the “worst possible interpretation” form of ad hominem. In both cases you would be (apparently admittedly) ignoring the fact that those advocating continued use of the DP are relying on the entirety of Church teaching about Natural Law for limitations to the State’s legitimate use of the DP in order to be able be attribute that position to them, which introduces another logical flaw, that of deliberate error of fact.

Trying to pin such statements on phantom posters in other threads is also a non-starter, Ender, pwneton, and/or I have made our way to every DP thread here in recent memory, and the exaggerated position you present has not been explicity endorsed by anyone with a persistent presence in those threads.

On exactly what basis are you presuming that they have the authority to TEACH that without making a de facto presumption that the authority to actually make that determination no longer belongs to the State?

Thank you for the reference to the specific post. That allows me to understand your position better. However, I must ask you for a clarification or two.Why the emphasis on the word Is this a question about the instructive nature of the CCC or the teaching authority of the magisterium behind it. I am quoting the Catechism to you.

Along those same lines, clarify where the Cathecism fits into your understanding of “entirety?” I (and perhaps you as well), have had more than my share of pro-aborts quoting me Church documents from centuries past that make statements about the beginning of life in the womb that are in conflict with what the Church teaches today. I find the Catechism to contain the essence of the Catholic faith, explaining the four main elements of that faith. If there is a perceived conflict with previous statements, I will defer to it.
In regards to “pinning statements” on you, I contest your ad hominem charge and believe my assertion does follow simple logic. Nonetheless, perhaps a response will help my understanding: How is an attempted murderer whose bullet misses by an inch any less of a threat to innocent human life than the actual murderer who hit his target squarely under identical circumstances? If it helps in keeping with your insistence that such decisions are solely the domain of the State, then tell me whether or not you as Head of State would make a distinction between the two criminals in terms of punishment. And, if so, by what reasoning?

 

[TOME]

I find it interesting, and if I am wrong please correct me, but an essential part your argument defending the State’s right and the exercise this right in the USA of the Death Penalty (DP) is based on your belief that the present teaching of the Church, as expressed in Evangelium Vitae (EV) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), is the dichotomy between contemporary theachings and the traditional teachings of the Church. Again, I have to disagree with you for several reasons.

First, you seem to based your opinion on a few selective statements from past documents and limit your use of those documents to the sentences or paragraphs that contain either the word “Avenge(ing)” a murder or its concept as if this is the sole reason for the Church’s understanding of its justification for the use of the DP. I have failed to find inany of your post the totality of the Church’s teachings in these older documents relating the other reasons for punishment nor more importanly the role of “Mercy” also clearly stated in past teachings.

Given the fact that you have cited the traditional teachings of the Church I am sure must be well aware of the philosophical bases upon which Church doctrine was established. Because you cite the past doctrines of the Church with “reasonable knowledge” or understanding that allows you to write with a reasonable authority on this matter, I am sure you also have reasonable understanding of the metaphysics, anthropology, theories of law and government (socitey/state) of Saint Thomas Aquinas whose philosical system was the philosophical bases for these doctrines.

I would find it interesting, then, to read your opinion of how what Pope John Paul II wrote in EV and what was expressed in CCC are essential breakes with Thomistic metaphysics and anthropology thus with the very foundations of earlier Church doctrines?

More importantly, I would be really interested in reading your understand of how what Pope John Paul II wrote in EV is a misinterpertation of what is essential to all Chuch doctrine and dogma, namely Divine Revelation as given to us through Scripture?

I must admit I have been disappointed in not reading any response from you my points and questions in regards to Pope John Paul II assertion that as Catholics (and to all Christians) the sacredness and dignity of all human life must be understood in light of Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice - thus our belief and celebration of the Eucharist. You may be of the opinion that this beggs the question of this particular thread, however, as I stated earlier, if the Eucharist is the centrality of of our Catholic Faith, then the Eucharist actually becomes essential to our discussion.

 

[Ender]

I just find it amazing that some one can claim that the pope has “no authority”…etc. Apparently the Pope doesnt know this, nor do his numerous advisors and experts.

I don’t know what to say: I quoted JPII saying: “the Church has no authority” in certain areas. How can you be amazed that I accept that as true? Perhaps you misunderstand the Church’s role:

• “The knowledge which the church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the work of God which she has received in faith.” (Fides et ratio)
• “As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm … The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm.” (Veritatis splendor)
• “the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone.” (VS)
  TOME: FYI - I have read a number of different encyclicals.

The Church has the authority to explain moral truth but not to define it.

*“the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.” *(Dei verbum)

Ender

 

[TOME]

Ender,
One of the benefits I see coming from this discussion, at least for me, is the challange to actually read the entirety of the documents of the Church that we like to talk about as oppose to just a sentence of two googled for our convienence.

I would like to point out sections 106 and 107 of Veritatis Splendor. Perhaps I am mis reading these sections but it seems to me that what Pope John Paul II is saying is that the Church has been given the madate to evangelize all people (Mk 16:15) and essential to fulfilling this madate of Christ involves the Church’s proclamation and presentation of morality, the Church must present the foundations and content of Christian Morality.

I think it would be reasonable to say that if this is true, then the Chuch does have the authority to define morality. Simply put how can you explain something if you cannot define what you are explaining. By doing so you cut off the “Why” from the “What” and what god is that?

 

[TOME]

Just a point of clarification, my post # 263 was in respone to Ray_Scheel.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Frank:

First, you might not be noticing, but the forum software is mangling your attempts to format your responses with html paragraph marks and &character markup. I appreciate the effort, but its something I’m occasionally having to pick my way around.

Thank you for the reference to the specific post. That allows me to understand your position better.

Actually, before we proceed further, at what point did you actually start reading this thread? There was that that initial post of your (#76) without another post until #249. Since the contents of post 46 have been something I’ve referred to repeatedly and your more recent posts contained claims that pretty much required you to have actually read for yourself what I’d been saying, but this statement of yours reveals you probably have not. Part of our seeming to be talking past each other in no doubt due to the fact that I presume that the participants in a thread have at least paid attention to it, though not doing so would explain why your generalizations about my position seemed to be based more on what other notables have claimed I’ve said rather than what I have actually stated along the way.

Along those same lines, clarify where the Cathecism fits into your understanding of “entirety?” … If there is a perceived conflict with previous statements, I will defer to it.

And to this I will refer you back to the question I’ve previously posed about total lack of even apparent conflict of the wording in the pre-EV version of the CCC with what I cited up in post 46 and the various other citations Ender has provided. I’ll let you scan back for it, as I’ve stated it more than once and really have no intention of repeating the many standing questions yet again for someone who came in late and hasn’t kept up.

If it helps in keeping with your insistence that such decisions are solely the domain of the State, then tell me whether or not you as Head of State would make a distinction between the two criminals in terms of punishment. And, if so, by what reasoning?

Given circumstances and motives that were otherwise the same in a premeditated murder, probably not. I suspect I’d use the same reasoning behind the Vatican’s penal code, which until 1969 called for the death penalty for assassinating or attempting to assassinate the pope.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

… that contain either the word “Avenge(ing)” a murder or its concept as if this is the sole reason for the Church’s understanding of its justification for the use of the DP.

Not “sole” but “equally and independently sufficient”. My objection has been more to a working presumption that the state’s formally recognized authority - even responsibility - to avenge crime had been quietly (but decisively) eliminated as part of a small cascade of presumptions - another one of which also contains a conflict with formal church teaching, but about the limits tot he scope of papal competence…

I must admit I have been disappointed in not reading any response from you my points and questions in regards to Pope John Paul II assertion that as Catholics (and to all Christians) the sacredness and dignity of all human life must be understood in light of Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice - thus our belief and celebration of the Eucharist. You may be of the opinion that this beggs the question of this particular thread, however, as I stated earlier, if the Eucharist is the centrality of of our Catholic Faith, then the Eucharist actually becomes essential to our discussion.

As several of us indicated when you first started posting, by that point we had already grown quite tired of an approach to this issue that started with a conclusion and limited its backwards scope to parts of the deposit of faith that suggested support for that position. To the present time, the limitations to the discussion keep wanting to return to seem to be little more than simply tying bows in the mane of that same tired mule and calling it a new horse, then acting surprised when the folks who had been dealing with that mule didn’t believe it was something new since it still refused to do the same things it always had and wanted to go in the direction it always did.

 

[TOME]

Ray_Scheel,
First, in regards to your objection that the state’s right and even responsibility to avenge crime in current Catholic teaching I belived is address in the full text of Evangelium Vitae.

But this leads me to question your point that you about when I began posting several of you had already grown tied of “An approach to this issue that started with a conclusion and limited its backward scope to parts of the deposit of faith that suggest support for that position”. I question this for two reasons.

First, from what I have read of your post and others who are of like mind of yours do exactly this. You begin with the conclusion, namely, the State has the right and responsibility to execute murderers. To support your conclusion you look "backwards " to just a rather limited documents often limiting the entire scope of their content. Of the documents who quoted and listed all that you really have used have been an excerpt from Augustine’s “City of God”, an excerpt from the Catechism of Trent and excerpts from a few statements by Pius XII. I guess I should include an excerpt from Evangelium Vitae (#56) as well and a line or two from Veritatis Splendor. I fail to see how these provide a broard basis of justification for the DP from traditional Church teachings.

The second reason I question your opinion was the assertion that what I introduced had already been discussed and you were tired of it. I looked back at all the post of this thread and the first reference to the dignity of life was made by SpiritMeadow early on especially in post #26 but her introduction of the dignity of life was either missed or ignored. It wasn’t until I specifically began to write what was written by Pope John Paul II in EV and asking specific questions that I content are related to this topic that the question of the sacredness and dignity of all human life was approached. Prior to what I began to present about how Christ’s Paschal Sacrifice must be central to this discussion if we are to approach this question from a Catholic perspective, there was no mention of this in any other post, so I fail to see how you tire of something that didn’t exist?

I would like to pose another question, does having a right necessitate the exercise of that right or can a circumstance dictate that it is better not to exercise the right?

My own thinking is that circumstances may be such that it is better not to exercise a given right. I draw on the example of ST. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians Chapter 9. In this, ST Paul list his rights as an Apostle, rights such as being supported financially by the Church of Corinth or evening having a wife, however ST Paul continues to explain that for the good of the Church of Corinth he did not insist nor exercise his rights. I think if you study Evangelium Vitae in its whole Pope John Paul II is using this principle, namely, given the “Culture of Death” and its presence and effects on modern society what must be stressed - even to a heroic degree by Catholics is the “Culture of Life”. So while the State retains the right to the DP, taking all things into consideration the greater good (that is the perfection of man thus society itself) is served by the State not exercising this right except in extreme circumstances, which almost do not exist.

Again, you will have to read the entire encyclical to see his reasoning.

 

[Christine_Blake]

I am not referring to sin, but crime. We are also referring to people who might not only kill someone, but have actually done so. This is not the same as pre-emptive punishment. No, death row prisoners do not mix with other, but life prisoners do. I thought you wanted people off death row?

I do and I don’t want to become one of them in order to try and control actions that might happen. What is your goal? Justice? punishment? safety?

 

[bjmiller100753]

I look back at the OP and after 270 posts, basically see the same things being reiterated over and over (and over and over). As a fallen away Catholic who doesn’t even come close to having the expertise of many of you in terms of Church readings, I have been merely an observer (with the exception of a couple of minor posts) to this thread. I’d like to ask 2 questions but I am asking you to reduce your answer to either a simple yes or no. No commentary, no explanation. If you can’t answer just yes or no, please ignore this post as the obvious attempt of someone who can’t grasp all the intricacies of the debate trying to reduce this discussion to a level of simplicity to which it just cannot be reduced.

For opponents of the DP: Do you believe the DP is expressly forbidden in either the Dogma or Doctrine of the Church?

For proponents of the DP: Do you believe the Church is currently teaching that we have probably reached a point in time where the DP is not only no longer necessary but undesirable and counter to a Culture of Life?

Remember! A simple yes or no answer. Otherwise, please ignore this post!

 

[Ender]

Pope John Paul II is saying is that the Church has been given the madate to evangelize all people (Mk 16:15) and essential to fulfilling this madate of Christ involves the Church’s proclamation and presentation of morality, the Church must present the foundations and content of Christian Morality.

I agree absolutely with this: the Church must proclaim and present the moral law.

I think it would be reasonable to say that if this is true, then the Church does have the authority to define morality.

Perhaps we are disagreeing on the meaning of the word define. The Church is to God’s law what the Supreme Court is to US law; their roles are to interpret and explain what is, not to decide what ought to be. The Church has no more authority to change the moral law than the court has to change civil law.

Ender

 

[Christine_Blake]

I look back at the OP and after 270 posts, basically see the same things being reiterated over and over (and over and over). As a fallen away Catholic who doesn’t even come close to having the expertise of many of you in terms of Church readings, I have been merely an observer (with the exception of a couple of minor posts) to this thread. I’d like to ask 2 questions but I am asking you to reduce your answer to either a simple yes or no. No commentary, no explanation. If you can’t answer just yes or no, please ignore this post as the obvious attempt of someone who can’t grasp all the intricacies of the debate trying to reduce this discussion to a level of simplicity to which it just cannot be reduced.

For opponents of the DP: Do you believe the DP is expressly forbidden in either the Dogma or Doctrine of the Church?

For proponents of the DP: Do you believe the Church is currently teaching that we have probably reached a point in time where the DP is not only no longer necessary but undesirable and counter to a Culture of Life?

Remember! A simple yes or no answer. Otherwise, please ignore this post!

yes to both

 

[pnewton]

What is your goal? Justice? punishment? safety?

Justice and safety.

 

[bjmiller100753]

yes to both

Could you please point me to the Dogma or Doctrine that expressly forbids the use of the DP? Please make sure this is NOT your interpretation of Dogma or Doctrine but something that says in effect (and I’m paraphrasing here), “The use of the DP is always and expressly forbidden.” Thank you.

 

[Ender]

the state’s right and even responsibility to avenge crime in current Catholic teaching I belived is address in the full text of Evangelium Vitae.

One of the major differences between my (and Ray’s) approach and yours is that I look for specific comments that address the issue I’m trying to resolve and you appear to form your opinion based on a broad understanding of an entire document. I am quite aware that ideas can be distorted by taking them out of context, but I cannot accept that a specific statement can be ignored because it doesn’t seem to fit with the overall theme of a document. It is not adequate for you to claim that the “full text” of EV refutes specific assertions made elsewhere. I don’t accept that your overall interpretation of a document refutes specific statements made by its author.

To support your conclusion you look "backwards " to just a rather limited documents often limiting the entire scope of their content…I fail to see how these provide a broard basis of justification for the DP from traditional Church teachings.

Here is a list of the “limited” documents I reference to support my position. Every one prior to JPII contains a specific citation in support of the death penalty; there is not a single Church document prior to JPII to support the position presented in the Catechism (2267). Even the JPII documents are consistent with my understanding of justice, mercy, and punishment, of which the death penalty is merely a specific example.

JPII - Reconciliatio at paenitentia; Homily - Jubilee in Prisons; Angelus - 2002; Salvifici doloris; Evangelium vitae; General audience 9/29/99
Paul VI - Indulgentiarum doctrina
Pius XII - The Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment - 1952
Pius X - Acerbo nimis; Catechism of Pius X (1905)
Leo XIII - Exeunte iam anno - 1888
Innocent III - 1210
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
Catechism (1997)
Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566)
USCCB - A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death - 2005
Avery Cardinal Dulles: Laurence J. McGinley lecture - 2000; Catholicism and Capital Punishment 2001
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: Letter to Cardinal McCarrick - 2004
St. Augustine - The City of God
St. Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles; Summa Theologica

My own thinking is that circumstances may be such that it is better not to exercise a given right.

This is how I understand JPII’s comments as well. In the current situation it is imprudent to use capital punishment even though it is not immoral to do so.

Ender

 

[Christine_Blake]

Could you please point me to the Dogma or Doctrine that expressly forbids the use of the DP? Please make sure this is NOT your interpretation of Dogma or Doctrine but something that says in effect (and I’m paraphrasing here), “The use of the DP is always and expressly forbidden.” Thank you.

You are correct that the offical doctrine has supported it, however, Pope John Paul II did extensive work in the area, as seen in the following linked article: catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=15
I think the death penalty is in opposition to a Culture of Life. The doctrine has always been “when absolutely necessary”…is it any more?

 

[bjmiller100753]

You are correct that the offical doctrine has supported it, however, Pope John Paul II did extensive work in the area, as seen in the following linked article: catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=15
I think the death penalty is in opposition to a Culture of Life. The doctrine has always been “when absolutely necessary”…is it any more?

In post #273 you answered Yes to both of my questions from post #271. Are you now changing your answers to No and Yes based on your response above?

 

[Christine_Blake]

In post #273 you answered Yes to both of my questions from post #271. Are you now changing your answers to No and Yes based on your response above?

Yes, I guess I was wrong. I believed that the Dignity of Life from conception to natural death was enough to speak against the death penalty…It seems a paradox to me. I had not look specifically into the doctrine on DP until reading several of the posts…
However, I do see a contradiction there and I maintain that dignity of life from conception to natural death is a right of every human. I guess therefore, that I would agree that it is no longer necessary in our society.