Question about the death penalty

[Texas_Roofer]

And thus the problem is displayed again

I accept that people will disagree with my position but it is depressing that they do so without understanding what it is.

actually we do understand your position, and Ray’s and pnewton’s

I give you and TMC credit for honestly trying to rebut our positions but you both get low marks for understanding what they are.

and there it is, by dismissing the response as misunderstood you dismiss the rebuttal which is accurate

I don’t know why that is.
Most people agree with this[refer 2267] , even those who disagree with us for other reasons. Is this really so hard to understand? JPII made a claim about the state of modern penal systems that is either true or untrue.

not really it is close but not accurate. JPII said the need is practically nonexistent, the rest is your interpretation which should be refuted by data. So how many murders should be considered as failures to apply CP at the appropriate time?

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.

fair enough however if you simply post data that would work better

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.

actually we understand it just fine which is the heart of Ray’s problem. He insists we are lacking which is incorrect. Ray has proven over and over a lack of understanding Natural Law and Licenses which would assist him, but those are dismissed also

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.

which is wrong, has been wrong, will be wrong, and has been mentioned in several replies

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.

exactly, we have asked you to show where the church divided the catechism into binding and non binding yet that again is dismissed

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.

these statements are interpreted out of context, a read of each document is rather clear

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

Ender

We understand your arguments completely, always have. The bottom line is we considered your posts thoroughly however the rebuttals are always dismissed by two of the three posters. That is where the problem lies.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You mean, you’ll stick with one entry from the Catachism, minus the last paragraph… The Pope’s authority, and the proper roles for the laity and the college are laid out in the Catechism as well.

And, in case you are confused - it is not just my opinion. I’ve already pointed you to the Church’s, spelled out by the proper local Church authority with the express blessing of Rome. If it were just my opinion, you’d have a point. But, in Catholicism, not all opinions about proper application of Church doctrine are equal.

I am not confused and I know others share your opinion. It still doesn’t make it Church teaching. You have laid nothing our except a vague claim. I know the role of the Pope. I have read Evangelium Vitae now twice. Some reference to a papal homily is irrelevant. Also I know the role of local Church authorities, which does not expand to defining faith in morals, by the way. If so, those bishops which disagree with the USCCB would be able to promote the death penalty in their diocese. After all, the USCCB has no canonical authority and the local bishop does.

To use your words, this is not just my opinion, either. Either you can accept that a good Catholic may disagree with you on this, or you can’t. If the first, then we must disagree and you are welcome to point out where I may have erred over this thread. If the latter, then I know all I need.

We are mixing issues here so let’s be careful. pnewton has echoed the Church except his post indicate he believes a few more cases qualify for CP and he claims some prisoners have to much access to others and the outside world. Note the latter issues are not necessarily Church issues

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

What doctrines, and why? Since the teaching has been elevated to the Catechism, that is a serious accusation against not just the Pope, but the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Dogma is an interesting criteria. I asked previously, what Bishops object to our teaching? It isn’t an idle question. If the Bishops universally accept the teaching to be true, it is, by Dogmatic Constitution, infallible.

Prudential also, most assuredly, does not mean optional. The Church has even given us guidance on how to evaluate the importance of teachings. Papal Encyclical, inclussion in the Catechism, and broad public support of the College ranks a teaching very high indeed.

 

[fix]

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

I am trying to undestand both sides of the argument and the many points involved.

How do you reconcile this passage with your understanding of prudential decisions?:

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.

I ask because I think it actually supports your position.

 

[SoCalRC]

We are mixing issues here so let’s be careful. pnewton has echoed the Church except his post indicate he believes a few more cases qualify for CP and he claims some prisoners have to much access to others and the outside world. Note the latter issues are not necessarily Church issues

I’m not sure how the distinction is drawn. If prisoners have ‘more access’, then that is a systemic failure, or a societal failure.

More or fewer cases is a moral judgement. Deferring judgement to civil authorities in the past is no different then deferring some cases of abortion to theologians in the past. Neither undermines the Pope’s undisputed role over the whole Church should he choose to assert it.

 

[SoCalRC]

I ask because I think it actually supports your position.

In what way?

But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.

Makes it clear that resistance to a prudential teaching should not be taken lightly. And:

In fact, the theologian, who cannot pursue his discipline well without a certain competence in history, is aware of the filtering which occurs with the passage of time. This is not to be understood in the sense of a relativization of the tenets of the faith. The theologian knows that some judgments of the Magisterium could be justified at the time in which they were made, because while the pronouncements contained true assertions and others which were not sure, both types were inextricably connected. Only time has permitted discernment and, after deeper study, the attainment of true doctrinal progress.

Explains that historical context and absolute truth are intertwined. The death penalty teaching was not made lightly, or overnight. It started with teachings from an ecumenical council. Pope John Paul then put multiple teachings, including abortion, murder, and euthanasia in the context of those teachings, then the teaching was elevated to the Catechism - a Collegial effort, again receiving Papal blessing.

 

[fix]

In what way?

Makes it clear that resistance to a prudential teaching should not be taken lightly. And:

Explains that historical context and absolute truth are intertwined. The death penalty teaching was not made lightly, or overnight. It started with teachings from an ecumenical council. Pope John Paul then put multiple teachings, including abortion, murder, and euthanasia in the context of those teachings, then the teaching was elevated to the Catechism - a Collegial effort, again receiving Papal blessing.

Actually, I am against the death penalty but I can see the problem presented by many here. The current understanding needs clarification.

I read this and I think it presents the problem well.

 

[Ender]

"Ender:

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.

these statements are interpreted out of context, a read of each document is rather clear

I provided an extensive quote from Dulles’ letter including the two sentences where he wrote that this was a prudential judgment. Stating that I have taken his comments out of context is insufficient: how about explaining what you think he meant when he wrote

*“The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.”

*What is rather clear to me is that he meant exactly what he wrote - the Pope exercised his prudential judgment.

Ender

 

[TMC]

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 admit that was poorly drafted – I apparently sent if off in the middle of changing the sentence. But I thought the point made sense. I will back up and try to lay out the entire point we seem to disagree on step by step.

1. We are to submit to the Church’s sure teachings on faith and morals. What happens if we don’t is another big debate, but to not agree with sure teaching on fatih and morals is by definition to dissent from Church teaching on that topic.
2. The moral teachings of the catechism are the sure teachings of the ordinary magisterium.
3. The factual assertions of the Church are generally only due ordinary respect (unless they have been declared to be part of the faith).
4. The catechism gives this moral teaching on the death penalty: the death penalty is only moral when it is required to protect life. It is not moral if there is another means available to protect life.
5. The Catechism goes on to make a factual statement that it is rare today that the death penalty is the only means to protect life.
6. The moral teaching in #4 does not depend in any way on the fact presented in #5.
7. Catholics can disagree on whether and when the death penalty is moral as the only means to protect innocents. In other words you can disagree with #5.
8. Catholics that advocate using the death penalty for reasons other than protecting innocents dissent from the Church’s teachings on the death penalty. In other words, to disagree with #4 is to dissent.

This is what I have been saying, point by point. You focus on the factual comment in the catechism to dismiss the moral teaching. I agree that the statements of fact are not generally part of the moral teachings of the Church. But the moral teaching, that the death penalty can be applied only when it is the only way to protect life, is not dependent in any way on the statement of fact.

I suspect you disagree with my statement #2, that leads you to reject #4, and I know you disagree with #5. I don’t know what your basis is for rejecting #2, that the catechism is the sure teaching of the magisterium (assuming you do).

I happen to believe the Church is right about the rarity of the necessity of the death penalty. But even if I did not, I believe it is very difficult, impossible even, to argue that the death penalty in the United States is moral under the Church’s teachings. Individual applications may sometimes be moral, but the system is not designed to reach moral outcomes, because it does not focus on the moral reasons for the death penalty. Because non-moral factors, like the heinous nature of the crime, the feelings and suffering of survivors, and the value of the deceased to society are factored into the death decision, the outcome cannot be expected to be moral, except by chance.

I think that the death penalty should be abolished, and others can disagree. But I think that as a minimum the death penalty should be reformed so that the only basis for its use would be to protect, and not for justice, or closure, or fiscal soundness, or any other reason. I think the Church’s teachings compel that position.

 

[bjmiller100753]

I think that the death penalty should be abolished, and others can disagree. But I think that as a minimum the death penalty should be reformed so that the only basis for its use would be to protect, and not for justice, or closure, or fiscal soundness, or any other reason. I think the Church’s teachings compel that position.

I think the only guarantee of protection would be to build pnewton’s theoretical prison. In which case the DP would then be unnecessary. Kind of a Catch 22. Can’t outlaw the DP until we build that prison but then we wouldn’t need the DP. Can’t guarantee protection without that kind of prison which we don’t have so we need the DP. It all becomes very circuitous, (kind of like this thread ), and ultimately rests very much on the opinion of the poster as to what does or does not constitute an acceptable level of protection.

 

[Ender]

"TMC:

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

This was quite interesting but is surely not simple. As I understand it he spoke of three doctrinal forms: infallible because it is set forth as divinely revealed, infallible because it was definitively proposed by the Church, and not infallible but taught as true or sure.

He then made this comment which is the one relevant to this discussion: *“A proposition contrary to these doctrines can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as **rash or dangerous.” *I accept that this means I am skating on thin ice but also that I will not necessarily fall through.

How do you reconcile this passage with your understanding of prudential decisions?:

*“When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies.” *

Well, so far, so good - this is in fact my position with regard to the teaching on the death penalty; it seems to me that there are deficiencies.

"31. It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question."

Again, except for not being an accredited theologian, this is where I am. I have tried to turn the debate to a discussion of the nature of justice, punishment, mercy … but we never get beyond “the Church says it, you have to accept it” which doesn’t get to the root of my objections.

You and TMC have provide useful references. They up the ante on the problem of not assenting but reinforce my contention that there are situations where withholding assent can be acceptable.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

What is rather clear to me is that he meant exactly what he wrote - the Pope exercised his prudential judgment.

So?

“Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place. For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - LUMEN GENTIUM, #25 (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church - emphasis added)

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

If the Pope stresses that it is important, we are supposed to obey. Further:

“…this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith, by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals. And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith. The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of Bishops, when that body exercises the supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. To these definitions the assent of the Church can never be wanting, on account of the activity of that same Holy Spirit, by which the whole flock of Christ is preserved and progresses in unity of faith.” - LUMEN GENTIUM, #25 (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church - emphasis added)

If you want to ‘move the discussion forward’ you need to first acknowledge that you are disobeying. Second, you must, as instructed, continue to strive to accept. Finally, you must make assertions that match measurable reality. Saying that there is a risk when the preponderance of evidence says otherwise is not discussion, it is rationalization.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I’m not sure how the distinction is drawn. If prisoners have ‘more access’, then that is a systemic failure, or a societal failure.

There is also the matter of minimum standards of interaction and communication for prisoners in Catholic theological thought, never mind the judicial decisions in the US and the EU human rights standards that effectively rule out much of that from ever being implemented. Though I think pnewton’s ideas on what it would take to truly secure some prisoners is accurate, that kind of long-term treatment is also generally described as inhumane in both secular and theological circles in cases where a secular entity attempts that kind of treatment of prisoners, which then creates a catch-22 where the State is left with no acceptable ways to handle those that would otherwise be condemned.

 

[SoCalRC]

There is also the matter of minimum standards of interaction and communication for prisoners in Catholic theological thought, never mind the judicial decisions in the US and the EU human rights standards that effectively rule out much of that from ever being implemented. Though I think pnewton’s ideas on what it would take to truly secure some prisoners is accurate, that kind of long-term treatment is also generally described as inhumane in both secular and theological circles in cases where a secular entity attempts that kind of treatment of prisoners, which then creates a catch-22 where the State is left with no acceptable ways to handle those that would otherwise be condemned.

That assumes that pnewton’s ideas are demonstrably necessary. We are essentially alone among industrialized nations in using the death penalty. There appears to be no measurable benefit.

 

[bjmiller100753]

Finally, you must make assertions that match measurable reality.

Meaning assertions that match your measurable reality. It is clear that you are against the DP. It is clear that you believe that everyone should be against the DP. And it is equally clear that you will not listen to any point of view about the DP that is not in agreement with yours. Of course you try to say this is not your opinion, you are merely echoing the opinion of the Church. Again, another Catch 22. “I’m right because I believe my opinion of what the Church is teaching is correct. You’re wrong because you don’t believe my opinion of what the Church is teaching.”

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Actually, I am against the death penalty but I can see the problem presented by many here. The current understanding needs clarification.

I read this and I think it presents the problem well.

I would agree that it is a very good presentation, though I’m afraid that since it is full of citations to otherwise undeniable teaching statements it will also be ignored since those sources fall outside of the pontificate of John Paul II and decisively prevent a claim that legitimate reasons to exercise the DP not reiterated by JP II must be presumed to be revoked.

We have come all this way and are really still no closer to a resolution.

There actually has been agreement by the key participants from the start that the self-defense motivation could be limited to particular conditions. There has been much debate centering on the fact that the actually stated conditions are themselves based on a very debatable prudential determination of JP II (and by extension the USCCB ) that is inconsistent with the scholars of the field of criminal justice methods. However, we seem to have settled with most parties now that there remains legitimate wiggle room on determining when the threat is enough in and of itself to warrant execution (added: and as to what constitutes “rare”).

However, by a concentrated effort to essentially discard all Church teaching on this subject prior to JP II unless they agreed with his proposals, the opponents of the Death Penalty have made no effort to substantiate their claim that a limitation placed on when capital punishment can be exercised for the reason of the immediate defense of society has to also be presumed to revoke reasons taught as being independent and equally acceptable: avenging crime, punishment for cases where the crime itself deprived the offender’s right to life, and (more tenuously) actually inspiring repentance with knowledge of the hour of one’s calling.

(edited for clarity)

 

[TOME]

Because of my time restraints I am just going to make some comments for all.

First, an encylical letter is more than just a homily, it carries the weight of the teaching authority of a pope exercising his Petrine Ministry.

Another point, when we read a word such as “Prudential” as used by Cardinal Dulles this term must be understood in the light of Thomastic philosophy and meaning something more than just being wise in a common understanding.

An example has been used several times using stem cell research. I was interested in seeing this because it points to what I have been trying to emphasize, namely, the moral principle which must be the guiding principle for determing the morality of the act. This principle is based on the absolute dignity and sacredness of all human life. This principle superceeds all others because if this is not the starting principle then the morality of the research would have to be dependent of such criteria as utilitariamism or that the end justifies means.

Why has there been a consistant failure to discuss this question from the Moral and Scriptural Principles which are at the basis of the Church’s teaching as presented in Evangelium Vitae? If the exercise of the DP can a moral act, what are the moral principles each of us apply in our conscious decision as Catholics and Americans which form the basis of our judgements?

 

[bjmiller100753]

If the exercise of the DP can be a moral act, what are the moral principles each of us apply in our conscious decision as Catholics and Americans which form the basis of our judgements?

I’m not sure I can recall anyone in this thread saying exercising the DP can be a “moral” act. I’ve heard a number of people say that in limited instances, under very stringent conditions, the DP can be applied without it being an immoral act. I don’t believe it has to be one or the other. For myself, I would call the exercise of the DP an amoral act. Neither good nor bad, just necessary in those rare instances that fall within strict guidelines.

 

[SoCalRC]

Meaning assertions that match your measurable reality. It is clear that you are against the DP. It is clear that you believe that everyone should be against the DP. And it is equally clear that you will not listen to any point of view about the DP that is not in agreement with yours. Of course you try to say this is not your opinion, you are merely echoing the opinion of the Church. Again, another Catch 22. “I’m right because I believe my opinion of what the Church is teaching is correct. You’re wrong because you don’t believe my opinion of what the Church is teaching.”

You’re angry, but why?

In terms of measurable reality, I’m happy with the secular scientific definition, which deals with the preponderance of evidence. There appear to be a staggering number of studies regarding the death penalty conducted since 1984. The vast majority of them find that the dealth penalty costs more and has no measurable effect as a deterent. It seems particularly compelling to compare state to state.

Similiarly, there are at least 15 comparative studies between industrialized nations. None that I am aware of finds a statistical advantage to being one of the remaining industrialized nations to use the death penalty. In fact, the majority show that we do worse in terms of recidivism and public safety.

Now, regarding Church teaching, there are three questions, what does the Church teach, does it have the authority to teach it, and should we obey. In the “Universal Catachism”, we have Papal Authority that the death penalty should be exceedingly rare, if not nonexistant.

In the US version of the Catechism (prepared by the USCCB but approved by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation of the Clergy (ie, Rome)), it states that the death penalty is not appropriate in th US. Further, it states that the current use of it devalues life.

So, what the Church teaches seems clear.

The Catechism (both universal and US) declare that the Vicar of Christ is the undisputed moral leader of all the faithful, with full authority over doctrine, etc. This is reinforced by the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, which asserts that disputing this authority is “anathema” - beyond excommunication (seperation from the Body of the Faithful), it is seperation from the Body of Christ.

So the Pope sure seems to have the authority.

No one has asserted that the teaching is infallible. But, regarding rather or not we should obey, again, the Dogmatic Constitution explains what is expected of us. We are to strive to obey even if the Pope is not speaking Ex Cathedra. We are also told that we should particularly make the effort on teachings that are stressed.

Papal Encyclical, Catechism, and an assertion by the Church that the teaching is connected to 3 infallible teachings and the findings of an ecumenical council, along with widespread support from the College suggest it is not a trivial teaching.

So, yes, we are expected to obey even when we don’t agree.

As to what I personally believe, I have already noted that, in 1994 I started to reluctantly obey. Since then I have come to accept that the Pope is correct.

However, that has never been my point here. If you want to support the death penalty, fine, support it. If you want to use it more frequently, with perhaps pay for view executions to pay down massive national debut (which has nearly doubled in the last seven years), again, so be it. Your concience is your own.

I don’t argue that we have to agree. I simply argue that we should stop pretending that the Church’s position on the matter is not clear. Rationalizing a position contrary to the Pope using better-interpretation-of-doctrine-than-the-Pope theology might feel good, but, in of itself, it is a grievous sin, since it challenges the Apostolic nature of the Church and potentially puts other lay Catholics in moral peril.

 

[pnewton]

Both of the references above, the one by Cardinal Ratzinger and Lumen Genteum, limit the scope to matters of faith and morals. Lest we go in circles, let me state that this is not a point of disagreement.