Question about the death penalty

[pnewton]

Left coast people just can’t stand it when people do not agree with them. I also have the Church documents, I just lack your interpretation. I will stick with what more learned individuals and the Church tell me and reject additional yokes. Catholics do not have to believe in total prohibition of the death penalty.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

 

[Ender]

For the love of Pete! Ender, what was his next sentence? why, why. why must you chop, chop, and chop out important content? Just actually quote the man in context and address the problem you have with doing that.

Here is what I quoted:

“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.”

This is the next sentence that you were upset with me for not including:

*“I personally support this position.”

*Cardinal Dulles’ support for this position doesn’t change its nature. My argument is that the position is prudential which is exactly what Dulles says; that he supports it doesn’t make it any less prudential. If anything, it reinforces my contention that support is not obligatory - can anyone imagine a Cardinal saying “I personally support” teachings on abortion or euthanasia or any other Church doctrine? The statement is meaningless and bizarre unless it refers to a position where support is not required.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

This fact alone does not raise every comment to the level of doctrine. If a statement is not doctrine (infallible or not) then it is prudential.

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.

I see no reason to believe that Dulles did not understand the meaning of the term he used or that it was used differently in the two sources provided by fix and TMC. Those are the only two sources I have seen that specifically address prudential teaching as opposed to doctrine.

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?

I suspect it’s because there is little to support the position beyond “the Pope says so.” There are certainly no references in the catechism or EV to earlier documents that support this position. If this is what you want to discuss I would be more than happy to oblige.

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?

I believe that in certain cases the death penalty is not just a moral act but is a moral obligation because the demands of justice cannot be met with any other punishment.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

Left coast people just can’t stand it when people do not agree with them.

And baseless personal attacks demonstrate your Christian concience how? I’ve stated that you are free to believe what you want.

I will stick with what more learned individuals and the Church tell me and reject additional yokes. Catholics do not have to believe in total prohibition of the death penalty.

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea2.asp

Hmmm, the Pope perhaps? Or how about the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith? The Second Vatican Council? The US Conference of Catholic Bishops Committee on Pro-Life Activities? Your Cardinal? Your Bishop? Your Priest? Or Jimmy…

By the way, from your article:

“This statement was a response to those who argue that if Communion should be withheld from politicians who dissent from the Church’s teaching on abortion…”

So Jimmy and I agree on the audience and subject at hand for Cardinal Ratzinger’s quote. What we disagree on is how far one can stretch this:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Jimmy focuses on “legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics”. I think that the the entire sentence at least needs to be read:

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

The words “even among Catholics” seems to suggest that the two teachings in question are normally presumed to be important among Catholics. Simililarly, the context is clearly two absolute, infallible teachings. Of course, stressing different words is “interpretation”. So it would be better to go beyond one sentence and look earlier in the quote:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.”

The death penalty is described as a ‘moral issue’, not a technical or scientific one. It is also being compared to two infallible, absolute teachings.

While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be possible…

The Cardinal seems to believe that there is no ambiguity over what the Church teaches. This leaves only the question of rather or not Prudential = Optional? As Prefect, then Cardinal Ratzinger was sworn to enforce and uphold the integrity of Dogmatic teachings. As we’ve seen:

“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.” LUMEN GENTIUM #25

If we want to hear what knowledgable members of the Church have to say, then it is advisable to hear their whole message. The quote says that, in of itself, disagreement with the Church on the death penalty does not make one unfit for communion. That is because, unlike infallible absolute teachings, the possibility, however small, still exists that the Church is wrong. But not being infallible does not change what the teaching is, or our general obligations to obey the “judgements” made by the Pope with “reverence”.

 

[TOME]

Ender,
Maybe this will help explain my comments about the term “Prudential”. Simply put - simple enough so I can understand it - is a judgement made in light of “Right Reason”.

I think or at least it seems to me that we may be using terms not quite in keeping with their actual definition. A doctrine is an Authentic teaching of the Church but not all doctrines carry the weight of dogma. Dogmas are doctrines that are in essence so central to the Faith that to deny the dogma is to deny the faith itself. The perfect example of this is the Dogma of the Real Presence.

Doctrines are teachings of the Church, but like the Church herself are living documents that may change in its accidents but never in substance. Let me try to explain my understanding and if I am wrong please correct me. Using the Death Penalty as an example, the teachings of the Church have held/taught that the use of the death penalty is objectively justifible. You and others have quite rightly have provided us with documentation of this. But as I asked before, can the application of a doctrine (DP) change without loosing the essence of the doctrine?

Are doctrines of the Church to be held in isolation from one another or do they build upon each other? Is it acting with in “Right Reason” to apply the teachings of one doctrine without a consideration of the whole body of the Church’s teaching? Where some might say there is contradiction in the present teachings of the Church on the DP and other earlier doctrines of the Church, I hold this is not so. I hold, rather than contradiction there is “Tention”. However, I would also point out that there is the same “Tention” found in the Church’s teaching on God’s Justice and Mercy. I think this is brought out in the very documents you have cited, because in each, there is always teachings on God’s mercy as well, is there not? If the documents you and others have provided us also addresses the concept of mercy, is there a real disconnect between contemporary Church doctrine and earlier teachings?

I have to agree with some of the criticism you and others have presented in that I think the CCC could have done a better job explaining the continuity between the position stated in this Catechism and earlier documents. However, some of my criticism is tempered by something I wrote several times before, namely, a catechism is a reference and as such it should be used as a means not an end. I would hope that having read the Church’s teachings as stated in the CCC all of us will begin an inquiry into the how and why of this teaching. Here I think a study of Evangelium Vitae is essential.

In regards to your point about using the DP could, in certain cases, not only be a moral act but a moral obligation, I would agree. There is that possibility. However, this brings me back to the question of what moral principles would form the basis of such a moral judgement and what kind of situation would have exist?

 

[pnewton]

“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.” LUMEN GENTIUM #25

 

[SoCalRC]

“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.” LUMEN GENTIUM #25

Yes, and from the article you cited, a quote from Cardinal Ratzinger was principally relied upon.

“Not all moral issues…” - Cardinal Ratzinger

Cardinal Ratzinger holds that it is a moral issue. Actually, if we look closely at the article you cited, we find this:

As John Paul II pointed out in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, direct abortion is intrinsically evil and can never be justified under any circumstances (cf. EV 62). This means that it is not left to the prudential judgment of individuals whether to have or perform a direct abortion. It is always wrong, and to support this action is to put oneself at odds with the teaching of the Church.

But there are situations where war and the death penalty are moral (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309, 2267). It is left to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for such matters to determine whether the conditions in a particular case warrant their use. Consequently, to disagree with the Pope on these issues is to disagree with his prudential judgment, not with Church doctrine.

Even though in his position the pope is not charged with decisions about waging war or executing criminals, deference is certainly due to his prudential judgment. But to disagree with his prudential judgment in a particular case does not amount to dissent from Church teaching and does not trigger the provisions of canon law (e.g., CIC 915) that would result in Communion being withheld.

We can see that Jimmy and I are much closer than you and I in understanding. Note that his explanation of the theological distinction, and the reference to the specific level of ‘grievous public sin’ matches my explanation of the letter. Similiarly, we agree that “deference” is “due”. In fact, the only place we differ is with this sentence:

“It is left to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for such matters to determine whether the conditions in a particular case warrant their use.”

That is explicitly true with regards to CCC 2309 (basic criteria for just war) and it is true for other teachings in the Catechism. But it is not explicitly stated with regards to the death penalty. In fact, such an explicit distinction was removed from the working draft from the Catechism, with the Pope’s statement being inserted instead.

So Jimmy’s position requires the insertion of a condition that was, for some reason, removed.

 

[Ender]

A doctrine is an Authentic teaching of the Church but not all doctrines carry the weight of dogma. Dogmas are doctrines that are in essence so central to the Faith that to deny the dogma is to deny the faith itself.

I like the reference fix provided; it contains a good explanation of the different degrees of doctrine and of our obligations.

"The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Doctrines are teachings of the Church, but like the Church herself are living documents that may change in its accidents but never in substance.

The Church agrees with this - from the above reference:

“the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent.”

can the application of a doctrine (DP) change without loosing the essence of the doctrine?

In general I think the answer is yes. Whether that applies to the DP is an open question.

Where some might say there is contradiction in the present teachings of the Church on the DP and other earlier doctrines of the Church, I hold this is not so. I hold, rather than contradiction there is “Tention”.

Let’s debate this and see.

I would also point out that there is the same “Tention” found in the Church’s teaching on God’s Justice and Mercy.

I agree with this. It has been a struggle for me to reconcile both issues.

If the documents you and others have provided us also addresses the concept of mercy, is there a real disconnect between contemporary Church doctrine and earlier teachings?

The disconnect exists because 2267 is utterly silent on the question of justice.

what moral principles would form the basis of such a moral judgement {DP is morally obligatory} …

Justice, mercy, the nature of punishment, and the obligations of the state.

Ender

 

[Ender]

TOME:

Where some might say there is contradiction in the present teachings of the Church on the DP and other earlier doctrines of the Church, I hold this is not so. I hold, rather than contradiction there is “Tention”.

Let’s discuss the tension that exists between justice and protection.

We can clearly increase the protection of society by imposing draconian punishments on criminals even though the sentences would be unjust relative to the severity of the crime. When two of the purposes of punishment conflict with one another, can we say which is more important? Between protection and justice, which is primary? Do I diminish protection to be as just as possible or do I accept some unjustness to provide the protection society needs?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

But there are situations where war and the death penalty are moral (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309, 2267). It is left to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for such matters to determine whether the conditions in a particular case warrant their use. Consequently, to disagree with the Pope on these issues is to disagree with his prudential judgment, not with Church doctrine.

Even though in his position the pope is not charged with decisions about waging war or executing criminals, deference is certainly due to his prudential judgment. But to disagree with his prudential judgment in a particular case** does not amount to dissent** from Church teaching and does not trigger the provisions of canon law (e.g., CIC 915) that would result in Communion being withheld.

 

[SoCalRC]

But there are situations where war and the death penalty are moral (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 2309, 2267). It is left to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for such matters to determine whether the conditions in a particular case warrant their use. Consequently, to disagree with the Pope on these issues is to disagree with his prudential judgment, not with Church doctrine.

You are quoting a lay member, not the Church. Where is the actual Church teaching to justify the assertion in the second sentence with regards to CCC 2267?

With CCC 2309, we don’t have to guess, it says it in the Catechism:

“The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.” CCC 2309

But CCC 2267 contains no such language. I have heard people argue that it can be inferred from CCC 2266, but that line reads:

“Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense.” - CCC 2266

But notice that right is for “punishment”. CCC 2267 limits the death penalty to a very specific instance:

"…if [the death penalty] is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means" - CCC 2267

It precludes the death penalty’s application for the purposes of punishement and acknowledges only legitimacy in extreme cases of societal defense. Again, we don’t have to guess. Under RESPECT FOR BODILY INTEGRITY, we find CCC 2298:

“In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.” - CCC 2298

The Catechism entry then refers us to CCC 2267. That is, it specifically connects the death penalty to the teaching. So, the Church position is that, as a punitive practice, the death penalty is a “cruel practice” which is not “in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person.”

It is only permissible under the situation were there is a grave danger to society, not as a “proportional punishment”. The Church has not stated that civil authority is qualified to determine relative society risk.

This actually highlights a significant problem in the theory proposed in the article you are quoting. It asserts that Judges and Juries ‘decide’. But those entities do not assess the death penalty solely, or even primarily, on the criteria prescribed by the Church. They don’t examine facilities for competency and/or capacity and they don’t look at statistics regarding escapes and recidivism… They make an assessment of guilt beyond a reasonble doubt, then dispense a “proportionate” penalty. All well and good by CCC 2266 - except that the death penalty is not legitimate as punishment, only as societal defense - which is not really evaluated by our civil mechanisms.

 

[SoCalRC]

But to disagree with his prudential judgment in a particular case** does not amount to dissent** from Church teaching and does not trigger the provisions of canon law (e.g., CIC 915) that would result in Communion being withheld.

Actually, that one is such a stretch it is worth a seperate post. Then Cardinal Ratzinger asserted that CIC 915 was not invoked. That reads:

“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” - CIC 915

That is, the Cardinal only asserted that disagreement over the death penalty does not constitute “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin”. It is quite a stretch to take the Cardinal’s assertion that CIC 915 is not triggered and then claim that disagreement does not even equate to “dissent” from Church teaching.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

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 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

Here is what I quoted:

“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.”

This is the next sentence that you were upset with me for not including:

"I personally support this position."

Cardinal Dulles’ support for this position doesn’t change its nature. My argument is that the position is prudential which is exactly what Dulles says; that he supports it doesn’t make it any less prudential. If anything, it reinforces my contention that support is not obligatory - can anyone imagine a Cardinal saying “I personally support” teachings on abortion or euthanasia or any other Church doctrine? The statement is meaningless and bizarre unless it refers to a position where support is not required.

Ender

Actually Dulles does not say the “section” is prudential nor would he have such authority. The “section” is catechism and is not prudential. Dulles does not echo your believe in the least, because his use of the term is quantified to determining the extent of “nonexistent” further Dulles to contain this caveat goes on to clearly state support for the catechism, agreement with the Pope & Magisterium.

In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes.

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. I personally support this position

• Avery Cardinal Dulles understanding] 7) The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as
  imprisonment.

1. The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.
2. Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition. *

• firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2175

 

[Ray_Scheel]

But notice that right is for “punishment”. CCC 2267 limits the death penalty to a very specific instance:

It precludes the death penalty’s application for the purposes of punishement and acknowledges only legitimacy in extreme cases of societal defense.

Incorrect, as 2276 only limits the instances in which a specific reason for the death penalty (self defense) can be utilized. It makes no mention of the other reasons it has taught it can be used in thier own right: suppressing outrage, avenging crime, and (possibly) retribution

To conclude that 2267 precludes application for punishment requires an a priori determination that failure to directly address the other reasons one way or another creates a presumption that they must have been revoked even though they have been taught to be independently sufficient. However, there is no basis in EV or the CCC to support a presumption that prior Church teaching on this (or any other) subject must be presumed to be fully revoked if it is not specifically reiterated.

Again, we don’t have to guess. Under RESPECT FOR BODILY INTEGRITY, we find CCC 2298:

The Catechism entry then refers us to CCC 2267. That is, it specifically connects the death penalty to the teaching. So, the Church position is that, as a punitive practice, the death penalty is a “cruel practice” which is not “in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person.”

So, your claim is that the position of the Church is now that a practice it previously formally taught to be a fulfillment of the responsibilities of the State under the Fifth Commandment is actually not “in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person”? If promulgated teachings are guaranteed to be free of error, the Church cannot actually teach that following a specific teaching about how to abide by the Fifth commandment instead violates the rights of the human person, therefore your interpretation must be in error instead.

Though, since you brought it up, 2298 refers to catch-22 I referred to previously, where the means short of execution to actually secure certain incorrigibles have been specifically ruled out across the board where they were previously tolerated (though lack of specific approval) in more limited circumstances.

 

[SoCalRC]

It makes no mention of the other reasons it has taught it can be used in thier own right:

It does not need to mention other reasons, since it includes the word “only”.

So, your claim is that…

I only pointed out that the Church connects the two teachings in the Catachism itself. I agree with Cardinal Dulles from First Things, there is no contradiction, that is, Church law has not been revoked or altered, the Magesterium has simply exercised its proper authority with regards to balance and application.

Since you believe that the 1992 Catechism is in error, perhaps you should provide the ‘teachings’ you believe have been improperly contradicted so we can examine them in context. Given a choice between a missunderstanding on your part, and a failure of Apostolic succession, I know which way I would wager.

 

[TOME]

Ender,
I think we can perceive the tention of contemporary Church teachings on the DP with earlier pronouncements by looking at what is stressed in each. For example, one teaching may stress Justice, another Mercy, I think we could use as a measure what is being stressed by the amount of time given it in a particular document.

Perhaps I just did not do a sufficient enough job of communicating my thought that I did not find contradiction rather tention over Church teachings on the death penalty, in that I was looking at more than just the CCC’s pronouncements and understood the CCC’s in light of Evangelium Vitae. I think by the one link that was provided that discussed the revision in the CCC from what was in the original text to what was published as the approved text - which came out after EV - points to the importance of using the full body of Church teachings when formulating a moral decision.

In regards to the DP, I think we see the tention between the writings of Pope John Paul II and the CCC and the doctrines and other writings you provided.

Let me put it this way to explain. As I see it, the starting principles on the question of the death penalty are three. The first principle is that, as a creature created in the image and likeness of God, and the human person has a sacredness and dignity that is innate to his nature. The second principle is that the essence of man that is the ends to which he was created is union with God (The Beatific Vision). The third operative principle is by his nature man is a social being and that the State exist for the “Common Good” so that within the Just State man’s nature can move towards perfection. But the State whose goal is the common good as such it has its own nature and its own ends. (All this comes from St. Thomas.)

From the political theory of St Thomas, the State operates in its own sphere and as I wrote above, has its own ends. I think the ends of the state was summarized as well as any place I have read in the words of Governor Morris found in the preamble of the Constitution. But here we find a source of tention, namely, between the individual’s right and the right of the State to promote the common good. In a perfect society each individual would work in harmony and solidarity with one another, but as most of us have guessed by now we do not live in a perfect society. So there is the tention between right of the state and the individual.

In the documents that you provided the stress has been, atleast as you have presented, on the states rights and duty to promote the common good. However, I see a philosophical root that I content is the source of the tention we have been discussing. St. Thomas holds that the State has its own ends - the promotion of the common good, however, Thomas holds that this end is not the ultimate end of man. We may have a perfect state but man was created for something more - the beatific vision. It is the role of the Church to help man acheive his ends.

And it is here I see the real tention, where the role of the state and the role of the Church can come into tention. If the ends of the State is to acheive the common good, which ultimately should atleast create the metrix from which man could acheive his perfection, what actually is the “Common Good” peace and harmony of society in general or the perfection of each individual?

Past Church teachings has pointed to or stressed the measures that move towards the perfection of the state. Pope John Paul II using Thomas’ political theory is now stressing the perfection of the individual. And it is here where I find the tention to exist.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

It does not need to mention other reasons, since it includes the word “only”.

… as a qualifier specifying the role of the use of the Death Penalty in defense of the lives of the innocent against the human aggressor. This is English Grammar 101 (and in Latin parsing the sentence works the same) - there is no basis for a presumption that simply placing a qualifier on a single, specific, particular justification effects a complete revocation of several other unspecified - and independently sufficient - justifications.

 

[SoCalRC]

… as a qualifier specifying the role of the use of the Death Penalty in defense of the lives of the innocent against the human aggressor. This is English Grammar 101 (and in Latin parsing the sentence works the same) - there is no basis for a presumption that simply placing a qualifier on a single, specific, particular justification effects a complete revocation of several other unspecified - and independently sufficient - justifications.

You’re right, it is English 101:

"Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person." - CCC 2267

It says it twice, without condition. If the sole criteria is met, “defend and protect people’s safety”, then “authority will limit itself” to non-lethal means. If there are “independently sufficient” justifications, they do not appear in the Catechism.

If you believe that the Catechism is in error, then again, please provide some Church documents so I can review your claims in a meaningful context. However, do keep in mind that the “conformity to the dignity of the human person” in the CCC above is a reference to a teaching of the Second Vatican Council. The decrees of ecumenical councils with relationship to doctrine and dogma is noted in the Catechism as well:

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself - CCC 891.

 

[SoCalRC]

Past Church teachings has pointed to or stressed the measures that move towards the perfection of the state. Pope John Paul II using Thomas’ political theory is now stressing the perfection of the individual. And it is here where I find the tention to exist.

An excellent post. It reminds me of JPII’s pre-papal book PERSON AND ACT on Thomistic ethics.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

It says it twice, without condition. If the sole criteria is met, “defend and protect people’s safety”, then “authority will limit itself” to non-lethal means.

well, we already handled the first phrase, and the second is the same stretch: “to defend and protect” is the justification, the criteria (that is, the conditional) is the phrase you took care not to put in bold that started with the key word “if”, as in “If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient”.

The sentence as a whole is in the format of: criteria, existing justification, acceptable response, justification for the change to the criteria for that justification.

If there are “independently sufficient” justifications, they do not appear in the Catechism.

Considering that the CCC states clearly that it is not meant to be an exhaustive source for Church teaching, taking a position of “sola-CCC” is at least every bit as much an unsupportable position as sola Scriptura for defining the limits of the deposit of faith. Since I clearly recall posting part of the introduction from the CCC that stated that quite clearly one of the prior times you tried this approach, it appears that you also edit out the parts of the CCC that don’t line up with your way of thinking…

If you believe that the Catechism is in error,

I do not, and you know from the 13982487954915091 times we’ve gone through this dance it has been clear even to third parties ON YOUR SIDE that my objection is to your interpretation of that passage, based on Church documents I’ve already provided that conflict with your interpretation. I have never disputed the right, even prerogative, of the pontiff to place sharper definition to the conditions that need to be met for a state to claim that the death penalty is necessary in a particular instance for the defense of the people in that state.