You know, I have been doing a little internet research and it appears you are essentially correct. There have been a few isolated penal colonies but nothing even similar to the modern penitentiary system. In my digging, it appears that the Church and other Christian groups were pushing for a more humane way to treat convicts.Actually I omitted a couple of possible sentences used in Rome. They were slavery, and the arena, which lies somewhere between death and slavery.
Prison was reserved for people of means, or who were politically important, and could be usefully held for ransom. A man of straw got very short shrift. As for penal colonies under Rome, they were slave labour camps, and can be compared with Dachau.
And don’t forget the anti-Catholic impetus that rapidly grew after the Reformation, both within France among the revolutionaries as well as in England. One of the reasons that Marie Antoinette came to be so maligned is, in part, because she was devoutly Catholic.I realize that much of our (English speaking people) history comes from England, and France was an enemy of England since before the Reformation.
Forgiveness exactly, Peter did not slay the man and wife and he gave the woman an opportunity to repent, the Angel of Death took them and he was under Gods authority.And what about Ananias and Sapphira, who the Apostle Peter slew, via the power of God, for withholding their riches from the early Church and lying about it?
God does forgive those who repent.
What of the unrepentant?
But again, one cannot claim that the Catholic teaches that the Death penalty is wrong. You are free to believe we have reasonable alternatives to it.
That was difficult and you have done well.You know, I have been doing a little internet research and it appears you are essentially correct. There have been a few isolated penal colonies but nothing even similar to the modern penitentiary system. In my digging, it appears that the Church and other Christian groups were pushing for a more humane way to treat convicts.
Well, you are about to see something you do not see on this forum often.
You were right and I was wrong. :tiphat:
This is much more a strawman, or rather, several of them, and a fitting example of why those unfamiliar with a particular belief set should refrain from declaring what the fine points of that belief set are.As a heretic, looking in, I understand that in order to dissolve my heresy, I have to accept the rules, and the rules are laid out in the catechism. I may find some points difficult, and may question them. I may choose to disobey them, but I may not teach contrary to them, That is heresy.
Yes the article shows both sides of the argument.
But the bottom line is that the relevant section is in the catechism, and that is the end of the story.
Take it: or leave it.
Catholicism is obedience. You may question, you might disobey, but you must not teach contrarywise: that is heresy.
At least, that is my understanding.
It’s not only the State that says that, but the Church. The person who commits murder really does not have a right to his life, he gave up his right to life when he commited the murder.. What the state is actually saying, when they’re implemeting the death penatly, is that the criminal has nolonger any right to his life;
“Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he himself, through his crime, has deprived himself of the right to life.”
This doesn’t surprise me - I have nothing but trouble with the Vatican web site. Try this one on Yahoo - the first reference should be to the proper document.Unfortunately, the link you gave me did not work.
The man who is now pope disagrees, the USCCB disagrees, Cardinal Dulles disagrees, and the article you cited disagrees. Doesn’t that suggest even the possibility that your understanding might be flawed?But the bottom line is that the relevant section is in the catechism, and that is the end of the story. Take it: or leave it.
Fides et ratio:Catholicism is obedience.
“heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith , or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same” (CCC 2089).You may question, you might disobey, but you must not teach contrarywise: that is heresy.
God has the right to take such a life if he so wishes; but man does not. Plus the quote you sighted does not justify the death penalty in America; it only says that the death penalty is not “inherently evil” if the “situation” of the time merits death. We do not live in those times. Thus any just imposition of the death penalty can only be relitive to the times.The person who commits murder really does not have a right to his life, he gave up his right to life when he commited the murder.
God has the right to take such a life if he so wishes; but man does not. Plus the quote you sighted does not justify the death penalty in America; it only says that the death penalty is not “inherently evil” if the “situation” of the time merits death. We do not live in those times. Thus any just imposition of the death penalty can only be relitive to the times.
No, what is says is that the criminal no longer has a right to life. Pope Pius.
You made that statement that the criminal has a right to life, they do not. Pope Pius makes that clear.
And the Pope is just restating what God has already made known ( Gen 9:6 and Romans 13:3-5)
In fact, if you read Paul’s words in Romans, it specifcally states that the Authorities act as an agent of God when they punish wrongdoers.
You heard incorrectly, it opposes only the unjust application of the death penalty. It allows for it in certain, rare cases, even in modern times. It allows it when there are no other effective means of safeguarding others, and it leaves the decision on ‘effectiveness’ to the State.The last i heard, the Catholic church was opposed to the death penalty.
I am comformtable following the Church’s teachings on that, are you?
Yet he has not decreed that the ‘offending’ item be removed, as is his authority. His disagreement is thus prudential. He has difficulty with the item, but he does not teach contrary.Originally Posted by Voco proTatiano
But the bottom line is that the relevant section is in the catechism, and that is the end of the story. Take it: or leave it.
So Cardinal Dulles is infallible?Cardinal Dulles disagrees, and the article you cited disagrees. Doesn’t that suggest even the possibility that your understanding might be flawed?
non puto.
Fides et ratio:Catholicism is obedience.
- “If faith does not think it is nothing.”
- “It is not just that freedom is part of the act of faith; it is absolutely required.”
So you can think, thus you can doubt, possibly obstinately, as you do. Nevertheless, if you teach that what you doubt is false then you are a heretic.
Note, of my doubts, I make plain that I am not convinced, I accept that what I doubt may be true. I lack satisfactory proof. I did not get to put my finger in the nail holes.
“heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith , or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same” (CCC 2089).You may question, you might disobey, but you must not teach contrarywise: that is heresy.
‘Denial’ equates with ‘teaching contrary’ as I understand.
As for ‘obstinate doubt’, I am wary of interpreting that. You quote ‘fides et ratio’. Surely if a proof is offered which either I do not understand, or I find falacious, the it is my duty to doubt. I cannot see doubt as heresy unless that doubt is made public, and taught as such.
So there is a statement in the catechism that this item may be disregarded?Note that heresy only applies to the denial of “some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith.” The teaching on the death penalty is not such a truth despite its presence in the catechism
non puto.
No, he has not taught contrary, he has just expressed an opinion.so it seems there are only two possibilities: either you are mistaken about that section of the catechism or the pope is a heretic.
Ender
There is also not a statement in the Catechism that it is an exhaustive compilation of Catholic teaching, nor is there a statement that it contains no prudential opinions. The only real guarantee is that it contains nothing that is contrary to Catholic teaching (e.g. it is not wrong to have an opinion that capital punishment might not be necessary after a society has reached a certain point). You are setting using a premise about the role of the CCC that is not consistent with the Catholic usage of a catechism to draw a conclusion that is itself inconsistent with other established sources of Catholic teachings, where the proper approach is to interpret those sources collectively. .So there is a statement in the catechism that this item may be disregarded?
non puto.
If I err, then it is my regret. It is not by deliberate misrepresentation, but by misunderstanding.There is also not a statement in the Catechism that it is an exhaustive compilation of Catholic teaching, nor is there a statement that it contains no prudential opinions. The only real guarantee is that it contains nothing that is contrary to Catholic teaching (e.g. it is not wrong to have an opinion that capital punishment might not be necessary after a society has reached a certain point). You are setting using a premise about the role of the CCC that is not consistent with the Catholic usage of a catechism to draw a conclusion that is itself inconsistent with other established sources of Catholic teachings, where the proper approach is to interpret those sources collectively. .
It seems to be fairly direct on the matter.In the constitution of the Church there is no room for private judgment sorting essentials from non-essentials: any such selection disturbs the unity, and challenges the Divine authority, of the Church; it strikes at the very source of faith. The guilt of heresy is measured not so much by its subject-matter as by its formal principle, which is the same in all heresies: revolt against a Divinely constituted authority.
excellent point. historically, there has been a demonstrable racial bias in how death-penalty eligible crimes are charged, prosecuted and sentenced. attendant on this is the fact that court-appointed defense attorneys in death-eligible cases haven’t always been top quality, or, sad to say, even competent.My opposition to the Death Penalty in the US is that it favors those with money, but in and of itself the death penalty is NOT evil.
You are the one “cherry-picking” by continuing to insist on utilizing the CCC as both the exclusive source of Catholic doctrine as a source that exclusively contains mandatory doctrine when it is not / does not and has never been presented as such. Without both of those two presumptions, your little “proof” falls apart. The CCC states up front two key conditions relevant to how you are trying to use it:It seems to be fairly direct on the matter.
The CCC consists of a statement of the Catholic doctrine.
A doctrine is a teaching, from ‘docere’ to teach.
Stating that a Catholic dictrine is false, to the point of teaching contrarywise is thus heresy.
You cannot cherry-pick.
The quote given makes this very plain.
The CCC allows for the application of the death penalty in rare circumstances. I would tend to suggest that the overall feeling is one that the church leaders feel that the application of the death penalty is often misused and unnecessary. Its a fine line between “opposition” and “allows” especially within the context of the fact that leaders of the church often voice opposition to the application of the death penalty, especially here in the US.The last i heard, the Catholic church was opposed to the death penalty.
So what you are telling me is that the ‘highway code’ which I need to read, understand, and answer questions on, before I can get my Catholic driving licence is not a reliable document, and I am not talking about the ‘pocket edition’, but the reference edition in the virtual library.You are the one “cherry-picking” by continuing to insist on utilizing the CCC as both the exclusive source of Catholic doctrine as a source that exclusively contains mandatory doctrine when it is not / does not and has never been presented as such. Without both of those two presumptions, your little “proof” falls apart. The CCC states up front two key conditions relevant to how you are trying to use it:
Then, in paraph 24 it states that it “does not set out to provide the adaptation of doctrinal presentations and catechetical methods required by the differences of culture, age, spiritual maturity, and social and ecclesial condition among all those to whom it is addressed.”
- In Paragraph 11, it states: This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries".
In other words, its own words contradict the premise that it should be considered the exclusive and straitforwards end-all/be-all source for Catholic doctrine your proof requires it to be.
Mostly because the Church has already declared it be be acceptable in certain circumstance. The Church knows that the Moral Law does not change, it cannot.I’d suggest that the Church opposes the death penalty 99+% of the time but still refuses to take an official position that states it is always wrong.