Should the 19 year old Florida school shooter be given the death penalty?

[RichardsPlanet]

1. The Catholic Church has always recognized the right and obligation of legitimate authority to apply punishments and sanctions commensurate with the crime - including capital punishment.
2. The Catholic Church has never asserted that capital punishment is the only remedy legitimate authority may employ in certain cases. Church history is replete with Church theologians imploring the authorities to spare capital punishment.
3. The Catholic Church, in her wisdom and in the fullness of her authentic teaching has issued a prudential - which has the obligation of obedience - that capital punishment is to be withheld when non-lethal means of securing the safety of the population is available.

24 The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule … it would be contrary to the truth, if … 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. - DONUM VERITATIS - On The Ecclesial Vocation
Of The Theologian

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

 

[RichardsPlanet]

I am arguing it was unfortunate that the writers of the catechism saw fit to include a prudential judgment.

Unfortunate because it is incorrect?

n order to serve the People of God as well as possible … by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, 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.

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 … raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions. Here the theologian will need, first of all, to assess accurately the authoritativeness of the interventions which becomes clear from the nature of the documents, the insistence with which a teaching is repeated, and the very way in which it is expressed.

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 … 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. - DONUM VERITATIS - On The Ecclesial Vocation
Of The Theologian

A prudential permits discussion, not disobedience.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents

Regarding Fr. Rutler’s opinion, the following from the above document seems relevant (regarding problematic):

27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion. For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

 

[Ender]

Unfortunate because it is incorrect?

Unfortunate because it is a judgment and not a doctrine, and because too few people are able to distinguish the one from the other.

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule.

Reformable matters that are part of the ordinary Magisterium do require our assent. Reformable matters that are judgments do not.

A prudential [judgment] permits discussion, not disobedience.

That does not appear to be the case.

“To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.” (Dulles)

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Ratzinger)

27. Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions.

The debate is not about whether the doctrine is right that capital punishment may only be used for the safety of society, but whether that restriction is in fact a doctrine.

 

[Ender]

The Catholic Church, in her wisdom and in the fullness of her authentic teaching has issued a prudential - which has the obligation of obedience - that capital punishment is to be withheld when non-lethal means of securing the safety of the population is available.

The catechism does not say we are obligated to assent to prudential opinions. It specifies the type of assent that is required for infallible teaching and for fallible (ordinary) teaching. She says nothing about assent being required for prudential judgments.

891 …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.”

892 …when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”

Nowhere does the church suggest that assent is required to the prudential judgments of her ministers.

 

[Frassati15]

I chose NO because, if you say that you are pro-life you can’t be against abortion and for the death penalty. If you read in the CCC 2267 you will see that the death penalty can be used ONLY if that is the only way to keep the public safe. I will have to say that we do have a way to keep the public safe and that is life in prison without parole. So I believe that there is time for saving this young man.

 

[gam197]

Undecided

Two school shooters Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden shot 15 people, killed one teacher and 4 students but because of their ages 11 and 13 tried as juveniles and were release from prison at age 21.

Few remember the toddler in England that was lured by 2 boys and beaten to death. That kid got 8 years in prison.

So many(adults and juveniles) kill maybe one person but then let go after 8-10 years, begs the question is this justice?.

 

[Ender]

I chose NO because, if you say that you are pro-life you can’t be against abortion and for the death penalty.

True, you must oppose abortion. Being pro-life does not necessarily mean opposing capital punishment.

If you read in the CCC 2267 you will see that the death penalty can be used ONLY if that is the only way to keep the public safe.

What about CCC 2260? What about CCC 2266? The only way your interpretation of 2267 stands is if we simpy ignore the other two passages, not to mention everything the church ever wrote on the subject prior to 1995. I’m unwilling to believe the church is that cavalier about changing her doctrines.

 

[Frassati15]

I see where you are coming from. I would like to know what you think about the mental aspect of the shooter? I think that the young man could have been saved and we can’t blame the shooter alone. What about the FBI? What about the Officer on Campus and the reports that were given to the police about things he said. I am not saying that he shouldn’t be sentenced heavily, I myself can’t condemn him to death. I also think that CCC 2260 correct me if I am wrong but this section is talking and referring to the OT times and had to deal with the laws. When Jesus came and died I see that as He fulfilled the law and thus Christ in my option has already paid the price. Again, this is my option and I believe everyone is welcome to what they believe. I just think we need to not only look at shooter but ask the question if the FBI and Police would have done their jobs would this have happened? Also if the School guard had of responded what would the outcome have been. I think there is more to blame than the Shooter, because there was cries for help and the pain of losing his mother may have just tipped the scale. thank you for your reply.

 

[RichardsPlanet]

A prudential does not require theological assent and, therefore, may be disagreed with, however, any teaching or guidance from the Magisterium requires religious obedience.

It is no different from a child who disagrees with a curfew imposed by a parent. They are free to disagree, but not to disobey. They can dissent in opinion, but not in action.

From the Catechism:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

From Donum Veritatis:

17. [A]ll acts of the Magisterium derive from … Christ. For this same reason, magisterial decisions in matters of discipline, even if they are not guaranteed by the charism of infallibility, are not without divine assistance and call for the adherence of the faithful.

23. When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith.

When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, … the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

36. The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.

38. The right conscience of the Catholic theologian presumes not only faith in the Word of God whose riches he must explore, but also love for the Church from whom he receives his mission, and respect for her divinely assisted Magisterium. Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church and thus also with a correct understanding of theology.

41. Christ is the definitive Word of the Father … As such, He is the Truth who sets us free. The acts of assent and submission to the Word entrusted to the Church under the guidance of the Magisterium are directed ultimately to Him and lead us into the realm of true freedom.

Do you persist in implying that the Magisterium, deriving its authority from Christ and with Divine assistance, in expounding the one true Faith and offering such guidance as deemed necessary, has inserted a stumbling block in the Catechism?

 

[RichardsPlanet]

Commensurate punishment does not imply lex talionis.

I sincerely hope you do not hold that to be commensurate, a rapist must be raped and someone who deliberately maimed someone must be maimed in the same manner.

The Holy Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with its authority derived from Christ, has offered guidance in 2267 as to the appropriate application of capital punishment.

 

[Jordo]

I think that the main thing is to remember that He is a person who is deeply loved by Our Lord, and that Our Lord is ultimately who would be hurt if his soul is lost. By cutting his life short, we may be cutting his chances short of repenting. Let’s remember Alessandro Serenelly, the young man who planned to rape and murdered St. Maria Goretti. We have to pray for him,to console Our Lord and to try and save his soul from being lost.

 

[Ender]

A prudential does not require theological assent and, therefore, may be disagreed with, however, any teaching or guidance from the Magisterium requires religious obedience.

Theological assent is required for infallible doctrines, religious obedience is required for ordinary, non-infallible doctrines, but no assent is required for prudential opinions.

“…there can exist legitimate differences of opinion as to how to best to respond to a social problem. By recognizing these differences in “prudential judgment,” the Church acknowledges that at the level of concrete political action various views and methods can exist without running afoul of Catholic teaching.” (North Dakota Catholic Conference)

From the Catechism: 892…

Yes, I cited this passage myself. It refers to non-infallible doctrine, not prudential judgments.

From Donum Veritatis:…

Donum Veritatis does not contradict the catechism; it says the same thing.

1. The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.

This is true as it relates to doctrines, but it is not applicable to opinions.

Do you persist in implying that the Magisterium, deriving its authority from Christ and with Divine assistance, in expounding the one true Faith and offering such guidance as deemed necessary, has inserted a stumbling block in the Catechism?

I assert they placed a prudential judgment in the catechism, with all that implies.

To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. (Karl Keating)

 

[Ender]

Commensurate punishment does not imply lex talionis.

I sincerely hope you do not hold that to be commensurate, a rapist must be raped and someone who deliberately maimed someone must be maimed in the same manner.

I addressed this before:

The punishment does not have to be identical to the crime, but it does have to be of equivalent severity. To do less is unjust.

The Holy Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and with its authority derived from Christ, has offered guidance in 2267 as to the appropriate application of capital punishment.

That would be a doctrine. I thought we had established that this was a prudential judgment.

 

[Arkansan]

I think that the main thing is to remember that He is a person who is deeply loved by Our Lord, and that Our Lord is ultimately who would be hurt if his soul is lost. By cutting his life short, we may be cutting his chances short of repenting.

“Nothing so concentrates the mind as the prospect of a hanging in a fortnight.”

 

[Ender]

“Nothing so concentrates the mind as the prospect of a hanging in a fortnight.”

Along those lines is this (Ratzinger, 1988):

“The Litany of the Saints expresses the attitude of Christian faith vis-à-vis death in the petition: A subitanea morte, libera nos, Domine, “from a death that is sudden and unprepared for, deliver us, O Lord.” To be taken away suddenly, without being able to make oneself ready, without having had time to prepare – this is the supreme danger from which man wants to be saved. He wants to be alert as he sets out on that final journey…If one were to formulate today a Litany of the Unbelievers the petition would, no doubt, be just the opposite: a sudden and unprovided death grant to us, O Lord. Death really ought to happen at a stroke, and leave no time for reflection or suffering.”

 

[Mavzylor]

No, the death penalty is only permitted by the catechism in cases where non lethal means are insufficient to defend and protect people. As far as I understand, it is reserved for societies that don’t have an abundance of prisons and guards, or in special cases like crash landings on remote islands where criminals can’t be effectively restrained. The catechism even says that in today’s world the need for the death penalty is very rare, if not practically non-existent.

 

[Maximilian75]

From what I have read, the current decision is between life without parole and death. There’s no chance that he will ever leave prision.

 

[Mavzylor]

If they are truly rehabilitated, have become new people, remorseful and penitent of what they did in the past, their hearts of stone removed and hearts of flesh received, then mercy shall be granted. Otherwise, I would agree justice has not been done, but just know that it will be done in the end.

 

[AlNg]

if you say that you are pro-life you can’t be against abortion and for the death penalty.

Was that true even during the time of the Inquisition? Or has the teaching changed since that time?
And secondly, if you are pro-;life can you favor war and the use of nuclear weapons in war?

 

[AlNg]

There’s no chance that he will ever leave prision.

You hope. Prisoners have escaped and we have seen that some are granted pardons.