Question about the death penalty

[Ender]

Ray_Scheel, Ender and Pnewton,
Here is why I disagree with your position and the reasoning you have provided for your position.

I accept that people will disagree with my position but it is depressing that they do so without understanding what it is. I give you and TMC credit for honestly trying to rebut our positions but you both get low marks for understanding what they are. I don’t know why that is.
pnewton #64:

the Catechism stated that the that the need for the death penalty is rare if not practically non-existence. Even in this statement the possibility is left.

Most people agree with this, even those who disagree with us for other reasons.

It was only later that Pope John Paul II made the statement about modern penal systems. Of course we are free to disagree with such a statement of scientific opinion made outside the Catechism. It was not a statement of moral teaching, but a comment on the state of security inside penal institutions, a subject outside the vast expertise of the Holy Father.

Is this really so hard to understand? JPII made a claim about the state of modern penal systems that is either true or untrue. Since the claim has nothing whatever to do with faith or morals it is as open to rebuttal as any other statement of fact made by any other individual.
Ray_Scheel #61:

what is your basis from church teaching to show the Church has formally retracted that as its consistent position on that specific topic through at least 1952? The position of the Church has been that the authority to determine the need for the DP belonged to the State even before the Church was formally established; that it is an inherit right of the civil authority.

Poor Ray must be going mad: he’s been repeating this comment since this thread started and people still can’t seem to grasp this simple point.

As for me, I have claimed that section 2267 of the Catechism is the prudential opinion of JPII and is therefore not binding on Catholics. It seems to do little good to repeat that this is not a claim that the entire Catechism is not binding but I will say it again anyway. I have cited the comments of Avery Cardinal Dulles where he explicitly states that this section is prudential and the statements of the USCCB where their comments only make sense if this is true.

You cannot rebut our arguments until you understand them. That would seem the best place to start.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

Poor Ray must be going mad: he’s been repeating this comment since this thread started and people still can’t seem to grasp this simple point.

Because it fails to understand Catholicism 101. Pope’s can alter prudential teachings of prior Popes.

As late as 1869, Rome was referring questions about the legitimacy of abortions to save the lives of mothers to theologians. This changed by decree in 1884 and 1889. Since it represented a seeming break with tradition, questions were submitted to the Tribunal of the Holy Office. In 1895, it answered unequivocally. Again, there was speculation, perhaps there were special cases, like ectopic pregnancies. Again, the Church answered in 1902, “no”. This shift in teaching has been reinforced repeatedly by subsequent Popes, and the Second Vatican Council.

Are you challenging the Church’s authority on that, relatively rare form of killing? If so, then let’s discuss. If not, then accept Ray’s argument for what it is - an argument of convenience to rationalize his beliefs.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Because it fails to understand Catholicism 101. Pope’s can alter prudential teachings of prior Popes.

So, you are claiming both that

• Making a determination about the technological capability of a “modern” criminal justice system is a moral declaration
• Defining the nature civil authority under Natural Law is prudential?

It seems you’ve totally flip-flopped the meanings here…

 

[TMC]

Since you’ve hit on the topic while keeping blinders on to something I put up last night on this particular point, I’ll make it a direct question: Do you think that the pope’s moral authority would apply if he were to declare that existing adult-only (not umbilical, amniotic, or placental) stem cell techniques were sufficient to cure all diseases to which stem cell techniques might apply?

I think that the Pope’s moral authority would apply if he said that only existing adult-only cell techniques could be morally used. If he based that on the premise that the additional good of creating new lines did not justify the evil of creating new lines, or that creating new lines was inherently evil but using existing lines was not, or some other basis then one could argue that he was wrong, but I don’t think there is an argument that he would have exceeded his authority.

 

[SoCalRC]

So, you are claiming both that

• Making a determination about the technological capability of a “modern” criminal justice system is a moral declaration
• Defining the nature civil authority under Natural Law is prudential?

There are two competing teachings, a right to life, which the Church teaches is the fundemental right, upon which all others rest, and a societal right to self defense.

The right to life is not conditioned on any state of being, that is, it applies at “every stage” and in “every condition” (CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, #38). However, the right to self defense has always had conditions. St. Augustine, even while creating the concept of ‘Just War’ argued that there is no right to self defense, only an obligation to defend ones neighbors.

When two Church teachings seemingly conflict, it is the responsibility of Peter’s successor and the Magesterium to lead and instruct the faithful. That is what occured here. The strong support from so much of the College just reinforces the true Apostilic nature of our Church.

‘Assessing technical capabilties’ is a red herring. A modern wealthy society may choose to build shoddy facilities and hire inferior staff to save money. Such actions could elevate the societal risk of not using the death penalty. But, such actions do not invalidate the teaching, only the legitimacy of the society in the eyes of God. The Church teaches that all societies must recognize the inalienable rights of the human person (as clearly defined by the Second Vatican Council):

vatican.va/roman_curia//congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (see #3 and #4)

Just as modern biology continues to reinforce the Church’s position on abortion, secular research continues to validate the Church’s position on the death penalty

It seems you’ve totally flip-flopped the meanings here…

No, prudential means that it is not infallible, either via Papal authority or the infallibility of the Church. In Catholicism, prudential does not mean ‘optional’. It means that the Church is teaching something as the prudent and appropriate application of Church doctrine at present. It is the responsibility of the Magesterium, and its undisputed leader, the Pope, to update purdential teachings as circumstances require.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I think that the Pope’s moral authority would apply if he said that only existing adult-only cell techniques could be morally used. If he based that on the premise that the additional good of creating new lines did not justify the evil of creating new lines, or that creating new lines was inherently evil but using existing lines was not, or some other basis then one could argue that he was wrong, but I don’t think there is an argument that he would have exceeded his authority.

You didn’t answer the question I asked. I wasn’t asking about creating new lines, but whether there was moral force behind a papal declaration that the exiting adult only lines were capable of curing all relevant conditions - whether or not they did.

 

[TMC]

So, you are claiming both that

• Making a determination about the technological capability of a “modern” criminal justice system is a moral declaration
• Defining the nature civil authority under Natural Law is prudential?

It seems you’ve totally flip-flopped the meanings here…

The Pope did not make a determination about the technical capability of anything. The catechism says that the death penalty is only moral when it is “is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” It says that these cases are rare or practically non-existent. You can argue that these cases are not rare, but there is no argument that the Church does not have the authority to teach definitively that the death penalty is only moral when it is the only way to defend others.

I don’t see where the catechism or the Pope or anyone else supposedly redefined civil authority under the Natural Law? Where is there a principle in Natural Law that a State may execute whomever it wants, under whatever conditions it wants, for whatever reason it wants? The State has the authority to exercise the death penalty, this is an important power that must be exercised morally. The Church has said what the moral exercise is. There is nothing in that that counters some Natural Law principle on the extent of civil authority.

And why the constant insistence that this was John Paul’s opinion? Do you think he was the lone ranger on this doctrine? The Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith did the actual writing of the Catechism. Cardinal Ratzinger was on board for all of that. When the official Latin version of the Catechism was published in 1997 (replacing the 1992 French), a number of corrections and additions were made. One was strengthening 2267 to make it more clear that the death penalty is only moral in certain limited circumstances. There is no reason to believe that the current Pope feels any differently, or that this teaching was merely a personal quirk of John Paul’s that will now fade away.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

The Pope did not make a determination about the technical capability of anything.

So, you are saying that this phrase:
“Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”
does not actually refer to a technical capability?

 

[bjmiller100753]

But, in Catholicism, not all opinions about proper application of Church doctrine are equal.

If you disagree with the Church on this doctrine, you disagree.

I think I’m reading what I’m reading but I just want to clarify so that I’m not being accused of assuming or interpreting. Are both of you saying that this is no longer just Church teaching but that opposition to the DP now falls under the heading of Church Doctrine? The same as abortion and euthanasia? Viewed EXACTLY the same by the Church, taught EXACTLY the same by the Church? The Death Penalty is equal to Abortion is equal to Euthanasia? Church Doctrine?

 

[goofyjim]

I think I’m reading what I’m reading but I just want to clarify so that I’m not being accused of assuming or interpreting. Are both of you saying that this is no longer just Church teaching but that opposition to the DP now falls under the heading of Church Doctrine? The same as abortion and euthanasia? Viewed EXACTLY the same by the Church, taught EXACTLY the same by the Church? The Death Penalty is equal to Abortion is equal to Euthanasia? Church Doctrine?

I don’t think there is Church doctrine on the death penalty. One is free to support it or oppose it. Those who are more prolife than just the issues of abortion or euthanasia are opposed to it.

 

[TMC]

I think I’m reading what I’m reading but I just want to clarify so that I’m not being accused of assuming or interpreting. Are both of you saying that this is no longer just Church teaching but that opposition to the DP now falls under the heading of Church Doctrine? The same as abortion and euthanasia? Viewed EXACTLY the same by the Church, taught EXACTLY the same by the Church? The Death Penalty is equal to Abortion is equal to Euthanasia? Church Doctrine?

The teachings presented in the Catechism are at a minimum the sure teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. Catholics owe “religious submission of will and intellect” to these teachings, so denying them is to dissent. Some would say that abortion and euthanasia are afforded a higher level of authority, that of the infallible teachings of the Magisterium. But whether the sureness of the teaching is the same ‘level’ or not, does not mean that they are the same. The doctrines are very different.

A document from then-Cardinal Ratzinger giving a simple explanation of the levels of authority is available here:

Doctrinal Commentary

 

[bjmiller100753]

I don’t think there is Church doctrine on the death penalty. One is free to support it or oppose it. Those who are more prolife than just the issues of abortion or euthanasia are opposed to it.

I don’t think you read the quotes from SoCalRC and TMC that I took directly from their posts. And while I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, I am asking them directly, since they are the ones who used the word doctrine in their posts if they are saying that opposition to the DP is a matter of Church Doctrine?

 

[bjmiller100753]

The teachings presented in the Catechism are at a minimum the sure teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium. Catholics owe “religious submission of will and intellect” to these teachings, so denying them is to dissent. Some would say that abortion and euthanasia are afforded a higher level of authority, that of the infallible teachings of the Magisterium. But whether the sureness of the teaching is the same ‘level’ or not, does not mean that they are the same. The doctrines are very different.

Let me be very blunt. You’re tap dancing here and trying to hide behind your verbiage and not giving a direct answer. Do you believe that opposition to the Death Penalty is a Church Doctrine and failure to oppose the Death Penalty puts you in direct conflict with a Doctrine of the Church? A very simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t think you read the quotes from SoCalRC and TMC that I took directly from their posts. And while I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, I am asking them directly, since they are the ones who used the word doctrine in their posts if they are saying that opposition to the DP is a matter of Church Doctrine?

I have read their quotes and disagree with them that Church doctrine requires us to be opposed to the death penalty. But Church doctrine doesn’t require us to support it either. It is a negotiable issue that I find still falls in line with the prolife position to be opposed to.

 

[TMC]

Let me be very blunt. You’re tap dancing here and trying to hide behind your verbiage and not giving a direct answer. Do you believe that opposition to the Death Penalty is a Church Doctrine and failure to oppose the Death Penalty puts you in direct conflict with a Doctrine of the Church? A very simple “yes” or “no” will suffice.

A simple no or yes will not suffice, because it is not a yes/no doctrine. Supporting the application of the death penalty in a situation in which killing the guilty is not the only means of protecting the innocent puts one in direct conflict with a Doctrine of the Church.

One can argue (althought not convincingly, in my opinion) that the death penalty is the only way to protect the innocent in some circumstances. But advocating the death penalty for vengence, for closure for survivors, to prevent paying to house and guard a prisoner, or even for “justice” puts one in direct conflict with a doctrine of the Church.

 

[bjmiller100753]

A simple no or yes will not suffice, because it is not a yes/no doctrine. Supporting the application of the death penalty in a situation in which killing the guilty is not the only means of protecting the innocent puts one in direct conflict with a Doctrine of the Church.

One can argue (althought not convincingly, in my opinion) that the death penalty is the only way to protect the innocent in some circumstances. But advocating the death penalty for vengence, for closure for survivors, to prevent paying to house and guard a prisoner, or even for “justice” puts one in direct conflict with a doctrine of the Church.

Wow! It took us 354 posts to get that out (at least in language that a simpleton like me can understand). I appreciate your honesty, your passion and your point of view. Thank you!

 

[TMC]

So, you are saying that this phrase:
“Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”
does not actually refer to a technical capability?

I am saying that the moral teaching of the Church is that the death penalty is only moral when it is the only means to protect the innocent from unjust aggression. The Church adds that this is rarely true for the reason you give. But the teaching is that the morality depends on whether it is the only means to protect. the moral teaching does not depend in any way on the “technical” analysis that you find so offensive.

Just to be clear, you have gone on and on about how the Church doesn’t understand prisons or whatever enough to make this judgment.

Are you saying you disagree that the death penalty is rarely needed to protect the innocent? If so, what percentage of those put to death in the US do you think had to be killed to protect others? Or are you saying that its also OK to kill people for a sense of vengence, to make the victim’s survivors feel better, or to save money?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

But the teaching is that the morality depends on whether it is the only means to protect. the moral teaching does not depend in any way on the “technical” analysis that you find so offensive.

Since I’ve been talking about the availability of the technical means, this comes across as gibberish - that the morality both does and does not depend on whether the means actually exist.

I have already directly answered those questions at least once each in this thread, and parts of them repeatedly, but will do so again just to eliminate any excuses you might have as far as potential memory loss issues for repeating questions I’ve already answered as a cover for dancing around the several fairly simple yes/no questions that I have posed repeatedly which you steadfastly refuse to address.

Are you saying you disagree that the death penalty is rarely needed to protect the innocent? If so, what percentage of those put to death in the US do you think had to be killed to protect others?

I do not disagree. In fact, I have repeatedly voiced my agreement with pnewton’s observation that the current rate of application already falls well withing the definition of rare. On top of that, I have also indicated more than once that I do have some reservations about how frequently that option is exercised now. There is really no excuse for you to be pretending that I have not already made myself very clear.

Or are you saying that its also OK to kill people for a sense of vengence,

I cannot declare that several points of Scripture, the Catechism of Trent and Pope Pius XII’s statements are all in error, so some degree of avenging crime (e.g. for deterrence) must be acceptable.

to make the victim’s survivors feel better

No.

or to save money?

No, to the extent that the state has the means without either taxing the citizenry into starvation or failing to meets its other obligations to which it has no acceptable alternative.

 

[pnewton]

Further, there has been no change in teaching with a change in the papacy, for example:

clevelandcatholiccharities.org/prolife/Articles/initiatives.pdf

Can you support the claim that every homily by the Pope has binding authority on all Catholics in all area? I would like to see that trick. If so, I believe JP II has already officially been named John Paul the Great by the Church, as that was part of Pope Benedict’s first speech.

Your link above is a newspaper and is not binding on Catholics.

 

[Ender]

Pope’s can alter prudential teachings of prior Popes.

I accept this: JPII’s statement on capital punishment is prudential. It is also a change from what the Church has previously taught and conflicts with doctrines that cannot be altered even by a pope.

prudential means that it is not infallible, either via Papal authority or the infallibility of the Church.

Prudential means it is neither dogma (infallible) nor doctrine (not defined as infallible but nonetheless taught as true).

In Catholicism, prudential does not mean ‘optional’.

Specifically what it means, in Catholicism as elsewhere, is judgment. Unlike dogma and doctrine, there is no requirement on Catholics to adhere to the personal judgments of others.

It means that the Church is teaching something as the prudent and appropriate application of Church doctrine at present. It is the responsibility of the Magesterium, and its undisputed leader, the Pope, to update purdential teachings as circumstances require.

Yes, but unlike prudential judgment, morality does not change with circumstances and no one’s opinion alters that. It appears to me that this prudential teaching is at odds with doctrines the Church has taught since her creation, I am unconvinced by it, and do not accept it. The Catechism states our obligation to assent to dogma and doctrine but I am unaware of any statement that we are bound by prudential judgments.

Ender