Question about the death penalty

[SpiritMeadow]

Well, if Europeans – who brought us such well-thought-out moral compasses as the Reign of Terror, decades of racist imperialism, Marxism, and fascism – are offended…



– Mark L. Chance.

That is not an argument. There is plenty of bad actions to pass around the world. Our experiences with slavery comes to mind along with Jim crow laws. that was not and is not the point. We are the best democracy in the world or so we state. We are the leader of the free world whether that is correct or not. We do have responsibilites to stand as a moral beacon especially when we take the moral high ground to accuse other nations of behaving barbarically in other ways. It remains but another issue where we say one thing and act differently. Do you have an argument about what I said now?

 

[estesbob]

That is not an argument. There is plenty of bad actions to pass around the world. Our experiences with slavery comes to mind along with Jim crow laws. that was not and is not the point. We are the best democracy in the world or so we state. We are the leader of the free world whether that is correct or not. We do have responsibilites to stand as a moral beacon especially when we take the moral high ground to accuse other nations of behaving barbarically in other ways. It remains but another issue where we say one thing and act differently. Do you have an argument about what I said now?

What are the consequences for a Catholic who supports the death penalty?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Other than his letter to Cardinal McCarrick in 2004 I’m unaware of what Cardinal Ratzinger has written that would be relevant to this discussion. Can you cite some specific documents?

His Jan. 7 New Years address to the Diplomatic Corp commonly called his State of the World speech…he endorsed the UN resolution calling for a cessation of the use of the DP worldwide.
You may find reference to it here:

iowamusings.blogspot.com/2008/01/carnivals-popish-things-evolution.html

This one gives me pause. If moral values are timeless then we must accept that they do not change regardless of how societies change. I am open to the belief that the harm or benefit of an execution can change with time but not that the fundamental morality of the death penalty changes.
There are some arguments being made that executions contribute to the culture of death (JPII’s position) but most arguments in this forum challenge their morality. I might be persuaded by the former but surely not by the latter.

Ender

So you are not persuaded or at least don’t find it analogous that God permitted divorce during the time of Moses but recinded it during the time of Jesus.? I assume it was because God believed we were ready to take on the burden of the more perfect rule. Could not the same be said about the DP? While perhaps not a true change in morality, it is as man conceives of it.

 

[estesbob]

His Jan. 7 New Years address to the Diplomatic Corp commonly called his State of the World speech…he endorsed the UN resolution calling for a cessation of the use of the DP worldwide.
You may find reference to it here:

iowamusings.blogspot.com/2008/01/carnivals-popish-things-evolution.html

So you are not persuaded or at least don’t find it analogous that God permitted divorce during the time of Moses but recinded it during the time of Jesus.? I assume it was because God believed we were ready to take on the burden of the more perfect rule. Could not the same be said about the DP? While perhaps not a true change in morality, it is as man conceives of it.

So the truth is maleable?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I merely made an observation, You are certainly entitled to disagree with my observation or the fact that I made any observation at all.

Your statement seemed to suggest that some sly means was used to divert the conversation because he felt he was not making his points and was losing. If you did not mean this, then I am in error.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What are the consequences for a Catholic who supports the death penalty?

I usually try very hard not to speak for God. I fear he doesn’t much like it. I really don’t make assumptions like you suggest. If I could, I’d well, be at least Pope, but I suspect even the Pope might allow God the option to deal as He wishes.

 

[mlchance]

That is not an argument.

Neither is this:

Most of the world considers the death penalty barbaric. The Coliseum is lit every time a person is executed in this country as a protest against it. Executions in this country are carried in papers throughout Europe. We are losing the battle of being a moral compass to the world by this action.

Do you have an argument about what I said now?

It’s still not an argument. It is, at best, circular, which is hardly a step up from the above-quoted argument from popularity.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So the truth is maleable?

explain what you mean.

 

[estesbob]

I usually try very hard not to speak for God. I fear he doesn’t much like it. I really don’t make assumptions like you suggest. If I could, I’d well, be at least Pope, but I suspect even the Pope might allow God the option to deal as He wishes.

If the church and Christ are indeed one and the same when you claim to speak for the Church you are claiming to speak for God. So you believe the church currently forbids the death penalty but there are no consequences for those who support it? What other church teachings can we ignore with no consequences?

 

[estesbob]

explain what you mean.

You are claiming that what was considered the truth 50 years ago is no longer the truth.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s still not an argument. It is, at best, circular, which is hardly a step up from the above-quoted argument from popularity.

– Mark L. Chance.

I gave a reason why people might consider abandoning the DP. That reason was and is that we are a powerful country and have a moral obligation to speak as the best democratic state in the world. As such we cannot speak honestly and powerfully when we still carry out executions in this country, something a large portion of the world has abandoned. It is not circular. You may not agree with it. It remains an argument against the continued use the of the DP.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If the church and Christ are indeed one and the same when you claim to speak for the Church you are claiming to speak for God. So you believe the church currently forbids the death penalty but there are no consequences for those who support it? What other church teachings can we ignore with no consequences?

I have given my opinion that I believe the Church is stating quite clearly that it no longer approves of the continued use of the DP. that is not by any strange convoluted twisting a claim that I am speaking for God or the Church. I believe what I have stated. I do not assume what consequences can or will befall anyone who adhers to it. That is not my job as creature. God has that responsibility and has not so far seen fit to share it with me. I have no idea what if any church teachings can be ignored without consequences. Again, I do not assume God’s role.

 

[estesbob]

I have given my opinion that I believe the Church is stating quite clearly that it no longer approves of the continued use of the DP. that is not by any strange convoluted twisting a claim that I am speaking for God or the Church. I believe what I have stated. I do not assume what consequences can or will befall anyone who adhers to it. That is not my job as creature. God has that responsibility and has not so far seen fit to share it with me. I have no idea what if any church teachings can be ignored without consequences. Again, I do not assume God’s role.

Fair enough. Have a great evening.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You are claiming that what was considered the truth 50 years ago is no longer the truth.

That is not what I said. I gave an example regarding marriage. That doctrine seems to have changed. We consider it immoral to divorce, or at least to remarry. Such is considered sinful. It was not considered so in Moses time, where divorce was allowed. I can certainly conceive that God, realizing that we thousands of years ago, had imperfect means to keep dangerous people from continuing to harm might have allowed man to execute those who could not be contained. Particularly hard for a nomatic people. Today those reasons no longer apply and we are grown up enough to hand the real rule…don’t do it.

ONe has to develop a whole list of words around here that just drive people crazy…error is one for sure…change seems another…calm down and read first and listen.

Bob, since you agree with me that you at least do not like the DP, I can see your constant nitpicking as only some bizarre attempt to argue for arguments sake.

 

[estesbob]

Bob, since you agree with me that you at least do not like the DP, I can see your constant nitpicking as only some bizarre attempt to argue for arguments sake.

For reasons I stated before I think it is very important that we do not state that something is a church teaching that is not. I cannot tell you the number of times I have seen in the press where they will state that a politician who supports the death penalty but opposes abortion is at odds with church teaching as one who supports abortion but opposes the death penalty.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

You are claiming that what was considered the truth 50 years ago is no longer the truth.

Not 50 years, but 13. Evangelium Vitae was released in 1995, and it appears that there is no dispute that there is no support for this new position from before that point (added: and in fact, that formal teaching from before that point must be rejected based on a presumption that JP II’s focus on the justification for self defense
meant he also meant to formally rescind the other reasons the Church had formally taught he State could use the Death Penalty on top of a presumption that he was formally revoking, specifically, the right of states in the US to to determine if their penal systems truly were capable of keeping the innocent safe).

 

[estesbob]

Not 50 years, but 13. Evangelium Vitae was released in 1995, and it appears that there is no dispute that there is no support for this new position from before that point.

As I have said before I believe the current magestrium would forbid the death penalty if they could but no they know they do not have the power to do so.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

It is intrinsically evil.

Here is what I don’t understand.

Simply put, how can the death penalty be intrinsically evil and identified in the same category as abortion?

A civil government executing a criminal who has committed a crime which is punishable by death is not murder.

We may disagree with the state taking the best course of action. Also, the Church may say that there are better ways of dealing with the criminal, but it certainly is not murder.

And I believe claiming that the death penalty is “intrinsically evil” is an untenable position.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

As I have said before I believe the current magestrium would forbid the death penalty if they could but no they know they do not have the power to do so.

Yes, I agree. Actually, I’m not sure that Pope Benedict would do so, actually, he seems to have spent a great deal of effort blunting confusion while in the role of his prior post. I’d had another though as I hit post that I added to what you quoted above, but I don’t think it would change your reply.

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I think your issue is taught in Matthew 19: 7-12 * They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts* Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.

I think it is the same issue, those whom can should accept life with out divorce, capital punsihment, etc.,etc.,

You claim that the issue is the same, but it seems like an argument from silence. You quote Jesus referring to bills of divorce not being something that God intended from the beginning and extend that into other areas where Christ (to my knowledge) makes no such statements.

And (again, to my knowledge), neither does any Church Father, Doctor, Council, or relevant authority.

I am no “pro-death penalty” and I truly try to know and follow the Church teachings. And because of that I really try to have a reasonable view. Lines of reasoning that force you to believe things like “any government body that ever put anyone to death committed a mortal sin” are simply not reasonable.