M
Matariel
Guest
No, you are not at odds with Church teaching; Pope Benedict said there is an allowable diversity of opinion on the death peanalty among Catholics:
He also said:
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
The Church’s teachings are not based on an understanding of human life but on an understanding of Christ’s teaching.
Morality does not change over time or from one place to another. It is very much unchangeable. The Church has changed some things but not in the area of faith and morals.
Again, morality does not change. If the death penalty was moral in the beginning it is moral now. It literally cannot become outdated.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, the Church’s bishops personally oppose the death penalty. That is not the same thing as claiming that the Church teaches that the death penalty is immoral.
I suggest that you go back to EV and look at the references in the section (#56) that deals with the death penalty. You will find one: it points to the Catechism (#2267) which in turn points back to EV. That is, there is no reference at all to anything in Church history to support the position JPII expressed in EV.
The arguments for the death penalty have nothing whatever to do with “freedom.” You haven’t been reading them very closely.
The primary objective of any punishment, including executions, is not defense, it is justice. Regrettably, that point was ignored in EV and the Catechism.
Stop judging the people who support capital punishment and address the actual arguments.
The Church points to the teaching of St. Paul in Romans (13:4) in dealing with this issue.
Ender
J
Joejohn39
Guest
The Church’s understanding of some aspects of morality has evolved. For example, on ecumenism, slavery, or usury. Would you consider it moral to burn people at the stake today?
As I said, it may have been necessary in the past for protection against criminals, but is no longer necessary in our current civilization.
T
TOME
Guest
Ender,
I read your response with a great deal of interest and your post inspired a whole series of thoughts,
First, what I presented was more, I believe, than just the belief of some bishops, I believe the teaching of a Pope, proclaimed through an encyclical letter, carries more weight than an opinion expressed by a bishop or two, But then you may disagree with me and hold that what a pope expresses in an encyclical letter is just the opinion of a bishop and nothing more. However, you seem to be missing one of the main points I was trying to make. The point is the Death Penalty, in and of itself, is not immoral. However, the application of the DP in a given time by a given society could be immoral. For example, the death penalty as it was applied by Nazi Germany while legal was immoral. PLEASE NOTE, I am not equating Nazi Germany with the USA, just tring to point out how the DP could be immoral in some cases.
In other discussions, I have made the criticism that too often we misuse the Catechism (any catechism) in that we make it an end, not a means, and use it as our only source. In the beginning of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” Pope John Paul II referred to the Catechism as a “reference text”. It is or atleast should be a starting point for our studies not the one and only text. I bring this up because of your use of the Catechism in reference to # 2267 and its relationship to “Evangelium Vitae” # 56 seems to do just that. If you are going to use the Catechism as your only source then it is understandable how you could hold that what Pope John Paul II wrote in EV failed to have any backing of traditional teaching of the Church. This is just not true because what is found in both the Catechism and EV are teachings rooted in the tradition principles of “Self Defense” first proposed by St Augustine and later refined (perfected) by St Thomas. There is a lot of historical teachings implied in those two passages. (More about “Self Defense” and “Justice” later).
Fundamental principles of morality do not change however the application or better the understanding of those principles should and do grow. Here I am not saying that moral principles are relative and not absolute but just as our understanding of human nature grows so does our understanding of morality.
Actually, there has been a kind of “looking back” during the 20th century which has affected the moral teachings of the Church during the second half of the 20th Century until the present. Here I am refering to the revitalization of the study of St. Thomas and as it affects this discussion I would like to point out an essential change in moral teachings. Basically what happened was to look at morality from the perspective of St Thomas’ own writings and to ask the question “What make a moral person”. In the past, and I think this perspective is where many of us come from, we looked at the morality of an act from the perspective of is this how perfect human would act? The closer an act reflected the perfect the more moral the act was (or is). However, Thomistic theologians began to look at morality from a different perspective, namely, from the perspective of determining the morality of an act by its ends, that is, does a particular act lead to human perfection? It is not a question of, “Is this an act of a perfect man?” but “Does this act make a man perfect?” And we should also apply this principle to society as well, or in other words, does an act lead to the perfection of society?
I read your response with a great deal of interest and your post inspired a whole series of thoughts,
First, what I presented was more, I believe, than just the belief of some bishops, I believe the teaching of a Pope, proclaimed through an encyclical letter, carries more weight than an opinion expressed by a bishop or two, But then you may disagree with me and hold that what a pope expresses in an encyclical letter is just the opinion of a bishop and nothing more. However, you seem to be missing one of the main points I was trying to make. The point is the Death Penalty, in and of itself, is not immoral. However, the application of the DP in a given time by a given society could be immoral. For example, the death penalty as it was applied by Nazi Germany while legal was immoral. PLEASE NOTE, I am not equating Nazi Germany with the USA, just tring to point out how the DP could be immoral in some cases.
In other discussions, I have made the criticism that too often we misuse the Catechism (any catechism) in that we make it an end, not a means, and use it as our only source. In the beginning of the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” Pope John Paul II referred to the Catechism as a “reference text”. It is or atleast should be a starting point for our studies not the one and only text. I bring this up because of your use of the Catechism in reference to # 2267 and its relationship to “Evangelium Vitae” # 56 seems to do just that. If you are going to use the Catechism as your only source then it is understandable how you could hold that what Pope John Paul II wrote in EV failed to have any backing of traditional teaching of the Church. This is just not true because what is found in both the Catechism and EV are teachings rooted in the tradition principles of “Self Defense” first proposed by St Augustine and later refined (perfected) by St Thomas. There is a lot of historical teachings implied in those two passages. (More about “Self Defense” and “Justice” later).
Fundamental principles of morality do not change however the application or better the understanding of those principles should and do grow. Here I am not saying that moral principles are relative and not absolute but just as our understanding of human nature grows so does our understanding of morality.
Actually, there has been a kind of “looking back” during the 20th century which has affected the moral teachings of the Church during the second half of the 20th Century until the present. Here I am refering to the revitalization of the study of St. Thomas and as it affects this discussion I would like to point out an essential change in moral teachings. Basically what happened was to look at morality from the perspective of St Thomas’ own writings and to ask the question “What make a moral person”. In the past, and I think this perspective is where many of us come from, we looked at the morality of an act from the perspective of is this how perfect human would act? The closer an act reflected the perfect the more moral the act was (or is). However, Thomistic theologians began to look at morality from a different perspective, namely, from the perspective of determining the morality of an act by its ends, that is, does a particular act lead to human perfection? It is not a question of, “Is this an act of a perfect man?” but “Does this act make a man perfect?” And we should also apply this principle to society as well, or in other words, does an act lead to the perfection of society?
T
TOME
Guest
Ender,
I finished my last post with the point that returning to the writings of St Thomas, themselve, moral theologians during the 20th century began judging the morality of an act by how a particular act leads to the perfection of an individual or a society.
This is the moral principle, I believe, that forms the foundational principle of the moral teachings of both Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI and I would venture to say, therefore, the moral teachings of the Church today.
I think, therefore, it is inaccurate to say that the teachings of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and what is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in regards to the death penalty, in its practice and not its principle through out the modern world, is without historical foundation. The foundation is , based on the writings of St Augustine and St Thomas on the principle of Self Defense, but more importantly, on the writings of St. Thomas’ anthropology - that is the study and understanding of what it means to be truly human, what is the true natrue of man.
So the argument moves from one of self defense or justice to one of human perfection, the perfection of both the individual and of society. Justice, then, is rendering to the individual what is necessary for the perfection of that person. A just society gives to all its citizens the social structure and laws which enables the perfection of all its citizens.
I found the passage from Romans (13: 4) which you provided at the end of the post you addressed to me both interesting and useful to make my point. Paul is addressing the issue of how to be both a good Christian in a pagan society, or to put it in another way paraphrasing Jesus, how do we render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. But, to stop at verse 4 is to miss an essential point - the main point Paul was trying to make. The point, as I am sure you know well, is what must be our fundamental principle guiding us in life is “Love”. However, “Love” for Paul is not an abstract concept but something lived out in our everyday life. And “Love” is the starting point and foundation of Pope John Paul II encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” as well as the theme of Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical “God is Love”.
A piller of your argument has been that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI’s pronouncements on the death penalty are void of traditional Catholic teaching because they do not address the question of justice. However, I reject your position because I believe they do not address the topic of “Justice” because they rejected your concept because your concept of justice as exercised by the death penalty here in the USA is not rooted in Christ’s message of Love and the understanding of the dynamics of true Love as found through out the New Testament. And your concept of Justice was rejected because from a moral perspective your type of justice does not lead to the perfection of the human person nor of society. You write of punishment predicated on Justice, but isn’t the use capital punishment when other means of punishment are available reflect a justice rooted in revenge. How does revenge make a society a better and how does it lead to the perfection of all involved?
Also, your reaction to my introduction of the term “Freedom” points out that perhaps the scope of discussion is too narrow and not all the ramifications are being considered. I tried to point out that the concept of freedom was relavent to this discussion because for many the exercise of the death penalty is rooted in the concept of self defense. I realize you have tried to move beyond this hoever there are others who have not. I think, therefore, that it is necessary that the principle of Self Defense is a God given right and as a God given right individuals and society should have the “Freedom” to exercise this right. I tried to point out that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have taught us and warned us for several decades now, that there has crept into Western Society’s way of thinking the fundamental error that freedom and rights are without limit both for an individual and a society. In regards to the death penalty this error seems to have worked its way into the thinking of many - put it this way it is almost as if some would say, “We have the right to self defense and nobody is going to take away our freedom to exercise this righ - not even the Pope.”
My point was right and freedoms do have limitations and in regards to the death penalty, as exercised here in the USA, given the “Culture of Death” the right of the free exercise of the death penalty has to be limited to the extreme. Again Pope John Paul II explains the “why” much better than I in his "Evangelium Vitae.
I finished my last post with the point that returning to the writings of St Thomas, themselve, moral theologians during the 20th century began judging the morality of an act by how a particular act leads to the perfection of an individual or a society.
This is the moral principle, I believe, that forms the foundational principle of the moral teachings of both Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI and I would venture to say, therefore, the moral teachings of the Church today.
I think, therefore, it is inaccurate to say that the teachings of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and what is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in regards to the death penalty, in its practice and not its principle through out the modern world, is without historical foundation. The foundation is , based on the writings of St Augustine and St Thomas on the principle of Self Defense, but more importantly, on the writings of St. Thomas’ anthropology - that is the study and understanding of what it means to be truly human, what is the true natrue of man.
So the argument moves from one of self defense or justice to one of human perfection, the perfection of both the individual and of society. Justice, then, is rendering to the individual what is necessary for the perfection of that person. A just society gives to all its citizens the social structure and laws which enables the perfection of all its citizens.
I found the passage from Romans (13: 4) which you provided at the end of the post you addressed to me both interesting and useful to make my point. Paul is addressing the issue of how to be both a good Christian in a pagan society, or to put it in another way paraphrasing Jesus, how do we render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. But, to stop at verse 4 is to miss an essential point - the main point Paul was trying to make. The point, as I am sure you know well, is what must be our fundamental principle guiding us in life is “Love”. However, “Love” for Paul is not an abstract concept but something lived out in our everyday life. And “Love” is the starting point and foundation of Pope John Paul II encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” as well as the theme of Pope Benedict XVI’s first encyclical “God is Love”.
A piller of your argument has been that Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI’s pronouncements on the death penalty are void of traditional Catholic teaching because they do not address the question of justice. However, I reject your position because I believe they do not address the topic of “Justice” because they rejected your concept because your concept of justice as exercised by the death penalty here in the USA is not rooted in Christ’s message of Love and the understanding of the dynamics of true Love as found through out the New Testament. And your concept of Justice was rejected because from a moral perspective your type of justice does not lead to the perfection of the human person nor of society. You write of punishment predicated on Justice, but isn’t the use capital punishment when other means of punishment are available reflect a justice rooted in revenge. How does revenge make a society a better and how does it lead to the perfection of all involved?
Also, your reaction to my introduction of the term “Freedom” points out that perhaps the scope of discussion is too narrow and not all the ramifications are being considered. I tried to point out that the concept of freedom was relavent to this discussion because for many the exercise of the death penalty is rooted in the concept of self defense. I realize you have tried to move beyond this hoever there are others who have not. I think, therefore, that it is necessary that the principle of Self Defense is a God given right and as a God given right individuals and society should have the “Freedom” to exercise this right. I tried to point out that both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have taught us and warned us for several decades now, that there has crept into Western Society’s way of thinking the fundamental error that freedom and rights are without limit both for an individual and a society. In regards to the death penalty this error seems to have worked its way into the thinking of many - put it this way it is almost as if some would say, “We have the right to self defense and nobody is going to take away our freedom to exercise this righ - not even the Pope.”
My point was right and freedoms do have limitations and in regards to the death penalty, as exercised here in the USA, given the “Culture of Death” the right of the free exercise of the death penalty has to be limited to the extreme. Again Pope John Paul II explains the “why” much better than I in his "Evangelium Vitae.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
*John
Chapter 8 : 1 -11;
while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. But early in the morning he arrived again in the temple area, and all the people started coming to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.” *
Well we can claim this guy is a Jew? or we can say he did not understand Catholism? Which would you like to chose?
M
Matariel
Guest
What’s your point? In another Scripture Jesus states it would be better for those who harm children to be drowned with a millstone around their neck. Sounds like the death penalty to me.
The Holy Father, Pope Benedict said there is an allowable diversity of opinion on the death penalty among Catholics:
He also said:
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
I’ll give you more time to work on it
something like this?…In another Scripture Jesus states it would be better for those who harm children to be drowned with a millstone around their neck. Sounds like the death penalty to me.
*Mark 9 :35-50
Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.” Taking a child he placed it in their midst, and putting his arms around it he said to them, “Whoever receives one child such as this in my name, receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but the one who sent me.” John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.” Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me. For whoever is not against us is for us. Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe (in me) to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna, into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched. “Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if salt becomes insipid, with what will you restore its flavor? Keep salt in yourselves and you will have peace with one another.” *
Did you notice you were not commanded to throw? In this passage, John 8 (earlier), and the catechism all three reference future sin not past sin all three allow the person to go and sin no more
Before waging war or using the death penalty one is morally obligated to apply a set of moral standards. Not all Catholics have to agree the standard has been met. Some may believe it has been met while others may believe the standard has not been met. Both groups of catholic can still receive communion. Neither group of Catholics is under obligation to follow the other group. This is far from the implied statement some post on this thread. In the USA the Bishops having looked at our history of wrongful convictions combined with our ability to imprison have strongly encouraged the US stop using the death penalty. The bishop’s are completely within Catholic teachings.
E
Ender
Guest
True, however JPII’s statements on the death penalty represent his prudential opinion and are not binding on Catholics.
Of course. It is immoral in those cases where it is unjust; that is, where it is disproportionate to the crime.
The primary objective of punishment is not now and never has been self defense.
I accept this in general, however growth does not include a fundamental change which is what has happened in this case.
I am in complete disagreement with this interpretation of morality. Not only do the ends not justify the means but they are incidental to the morality of the act. Morality is determined by the nature of the act itself and by the intention behind it. The outcome may mitigate ones responsibility but it does not change the moral nature of the act.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
This is not what the Church teaches. Read the Catechism 1750-1754. The three elements that determine the morality of an action are:
- the nature of the act (some acts are never moral)
- the intention
- the circumstances (including the consequences) - a secondary element
Unless you can cite some Church document to support this claim I will maintain that the Church’s definition of justice remains what it has always been.
Hence the act of justice in relation to its proper matter and object is indicated in the words, “Rendering to each one his right,” (Aquinas, ST II/II 58 1)
You speak in very generic terms based on your understanding of what the Church teaches. I try to find examples from Church documents that explain what the Church in fact teaches on a specific topic. Your arguments would be stronger if there was anything you could quote to support them.
My concept of justice?
*A word must be said on the full meaning of penalty. Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty *(Pius XII Address to Italian Catholic Jurists 1954)
Augustine says: "Unless a man restore what he has purloined, his sin is not forgiven. "Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly. (Aquinas, ST II/II 62,2)
Ender
T
TOME
Guest
Ender,
First I think it would be more accurate to refer to Pope John Paul II’s “statements” as “teachings” because that is the nature of his statements.
I am relieved to read you thought that Nazi’s use of capital punishment was immoral ,however, I was baffaled by the reason you gave. I was not the disproportionality that made their actions immoral but the fact that this was murder - the killing of innocent human beings.
I keep reading your statements that Self defense was a minor reason in the defense of the use of the death penalty. I don’t know why you would write this because when one considers all the arguments for captial punishment self defense (of the state) is always at its root. A society and State have the right to good order in order to fulfill its own nature. Any dsiruption of the good order of the state must first be stopped and the good order restored - this is part of self defense. Punishment is part of the process but it still rest on the right of the state to protect its good order.
I guess you did not understand my use of the word “Ends”. I used it as the best English word available for the latin term “Ens” or one could say the “goal of a thing” or the “perfection of a thing”
(“thing” being the English term for “Res”). For example, I am looking at a particular object, from my observation I see this divice measures, records and displays time - and I know it as a clock. The “End” (Ens) then of a clock is to measure, record and display time. The more accurate the clock is the closer that clock is to being a perfect clock so the “End” (the goal) of the clock is to measure, record and display time perfectly. So what I was referring to when I used this term was actually in close relationship to the first of the three elements you provided (from the Catechism) on how we determine the morality of an action. First we have to look at the nature of the action and we do this by attempting to understand the goal of the action or thing in its perfection. This is way many Catholic theologians have begun to look back to the actual writings of St. Thomas and have determined that according to Thomas, we should judge the morality of an act by determining if the act itself will lead to the perfection of the nature of the subject of the act. Hopefully this will clear things up for you.
You ask me to cite offical Church documents but I think you may not understand that I am referring to teachings of modern moral theologians - such as Pope John Paul II - in a similar way you have quoted St. Thomas or someone quoting St Augustine. The writing of St. Augustine and St Thomas, while highly respected and influencial are not official documents of the Church. Even the address by Pope Pius XII,you cited, is not an official document of the Church but does carry the gravity and weight of a teaching of a pope in his ministerial role. By the way, doesn’t the sentences leading upto the quote of Pius XII indicate that Self Defense (protection) is the primary reasoning for the death penalty?
From your quote of St. Thomas concerning “Justice” does Thomas hold that the “End” or “Goal” of human nature, that is what human nature tends towards in seeking its perfection, is the vision of God in His essence. Also, doesn’t St. Thomas hold that the perfection of the human person is the state of union of body and soul so that the goal of human nature is the vision of God in His essence but experiencing this in the perfect unity of body and soul. This is what “Justice” is the act which will allow, enhance, enable the individual to obtain the perfection of his human nature. According to Thomas, because man is social by nature society is a natural offspring and therefore the end or goal of society is the well ordered social structure which will allow each individaul to reach his or her perfection. Each person has to right to achieve the perfection of his human nature
I would suggest that you read St. Thomas’ writings on the nature of the state…
First I think it would be more accurate to refer to Pope John Paul II’s “statements” as “teachings” because that is the nature of his statements.
I am relieved to read you thought that Nazi’s use of capital punishment was immoral ,however, I was baffaled by the reason you gave. I was not the disproportionality that made their actions immoral but the fact that this was murder - the killing of innocent human beings.
I keep reading your statements that Self defense was a minor reason in the defense of the use of the death penalty. I don’t know why you would write this because when one considers all the arguments for captial punishment self defense (of the state) is always at its root. A society and State have the right to good order in order to fulfill its own nature. Any dsiruption of the good order of the state must first be stopped and the good order restored - this is part of self defense. Punishment is part of the process but it still rest on the right of the state to protect its good order.
I guess you did not understand my use of the word “Ends”. I used it as the best English word available for the latin term “Ens” or one could say the “goal of a thing” or the “perfection of a thing”
(“thing” being the English term for “Res”). For example, I am looking at a particular object, from my observation I see this divice measures, records and displays time - and I know it as a clock. The “End” (Ens) then of a clock is to measure, record and display time. The more accurate the clock is the closer that clock is to being a perfect clock so the “End” (the goal) of the clock is to measure, record and display time perfectly. So what I was referring to when I used this term was actually in close relationship to the first of the three elements you provided (from the Catechism) on how we determine the morality of an action. First we have to look at the nature of the action and we do this by attempting to understand the goal of the action or thing in its perfection. This is way many Catholic theologians have begun to look back to the actual writings of St. Thomas and have determined that according to Thomas, we should judge the morality of an act by determining if the act itself will lead to the perfection of the nature of the subject of the act. Hopefully this will clear things up for you.
You ask me to cite offical Church documents but I think you may not understand that I am referring to teachings of modern moral theologians - such as Pope John Paul II - in a similar way you have quoted St. Thomas or someone quoting St Augustine. The writing of St. Augustine and St Thomas, while highly respected and influencial are not official documents of the Church. Even the address by Pope Pius XII,you cited, is not an official document of the Church but does carry the gravity and weight of a teaching of a pope in his ministerial role. By the way, doesn’t the sentences leading upto the quote of Pius XII indicate that Self Defense (protection) is the primary reasoning for the death penalty?
From your quote of St. Thomas concerning “Justice” does Thomas hold that the “End” or “Goal” of human nature, that is what human nature tends towards in seeking its perfection, is the vision of God in His essence. Also, doesn’t St. Thomas hold that the perfection of the human person is the state of union of body and soul so that the goal of human nature is the vision of God in His essence but experiencing this in the perfect unity of body and soul. This is what “Justice” is the act which will allow, enhance, enable the individual to obtain the perfection of his human nature. According to Thomas, because man is social by nature society is a natural offspring and therefore the end or goal of society is the well ordered social structure which will allow each individaul to reach his or her perfection. Each person has to right to achieve the perfection of his human nature
I would suggest that you read St. Thomas’ writings on the nature of the state…
T
TOME
Guest
Ender,
One other consideration for you. When you read all the quotes in defense of the use of the death penalty, quotes from Sts Augustine and Thomas, are they not always speaking of the use of the death penalty in a society that is basically a just society?
St Thomas held a society could be reasonable just through natural means, however, Augustine held that the only society that is just is a Christian society.
Doesn’t the encyclical of John Paul II “Evangelium Vitae” point to how Western culture, Western Society, which has become so permeated by the rejection of God and the influence of the “Culture of Death” is no longer the just society from which Augustine and Thomas were writing? Western Europe has casted off, to a large extent, any acknowledgment of the influence of Christianity and look where our own society is and how the distortion of the separation of Church and State has lead us? When a society kill over a million innocent human being each year and either practices of is pushing towards euthenasia, can this society be called just? And if it is not just to the principle of St Augustine and Thomas, in regards to the death penalty, really apply?
One other consideration for you. When you read all the quotes in defense of the use of the death penalty, quotes from Sts Augustine and Thomas, are they not always speaking of the use of the death penalty in a society that is basically a just society?
St Thomas held a society could be reasonable just through natural means, however, Augustine held that the only society that is just is a Christian society.
Doesn’t the encyclical of John Paul II “Evangelium Vitae” point to how Western culture, Western Society, which has become so permeated by the rejection of God and the influence of the “Culture of Death” is no longer the just society from which Augustine and Thomas were writing? Western Europe has casted off, to a large extent, any acknowledgment of the influence of Christianity and look where our own society is and how the distortion of the separation of Church and State has lead us? When a society kill over a million innocent human being each year and either practices of is pushing towards euthenasia, can this society be called just? And if it is not just to the principle of St Augustine and Thomas, in regards to the death penalty, really apply?
E
Ender
Guest
JPII’s statements on the death penalty are teachings. The nature of the teachings is, however, that of a prudential opinion.
A state has the authority to execute criminals. That does not give it license to execute whomever they wish nor has anyone argued this.
Self defense of the state is not the root justification for punishment, capital or otherwise. The primary justification for all punishment is the expiation of the sin. Defense of the public order is a secondary objective.
*the **primary *scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (#2266)
TOME:
You’re getting a little too subtle for me when you refer to JPII’s documents as those of a modern theologian as distinguished from those of the Church. I’m not at all sure that is a helpful distinction; it dismisses way too many documents and diminishes our claims to understand what the Church in fact teaches. On the one hand you chided me for citing the catechism as my only source and now you discount my other sources for not really being official Church documents. That does seem a bit presumptuous inasmuch as you haven’t provided any citations at all in support of your claims.
Ender
A state has the authority to execute criminals. That does not give it license to execute whomever they wish nor has anyone argued this.
Self defense of the state is not the root justification for punishment, capital or otherwise. The primary justification for all punishment is the expiation of the sin. Defense of the public order is a secondary objective.
*the **primary *scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (#2266)
Your use of the word “ends” was more subtle than I realized but I still disagree with it as it is not what the Church teaches. Also, I wonder if you realize that you were a bit dismissive of Aquinas and Augustine because their writings are not Church documents while at the same time you are relying on unnamed “Catholic theologians” to support your position. I accept the distinction regarding my sources. I use them because they exemplify what the Church in fact teaches and if you can show where the Church teaches something that contradicts them then I would reject their position as well. Your sources clearly are not in line with what the Church teaches so I have no compunction about dismissing them.
You’re getting a little too subtle for me when you refer to JPII’s documents as those of a modern theologian as distinguished from those of the Church. I’m not at all sure that is a helpful distinction; it dismisses way too many documents and diminishes our claims to understand what the Church in fact teaches. On the one hand you chided me for citing the catechism as my only source and now you discount my other sources for not really being official Church documents. That does seem a bit presumptuous inasmuch as you haven’t provided any citations at all in support of your claims.
No. That is the position he is explicitly rejecting as not in accord with the Church’s understanding of punishment.
One of the major differences between us is that you provide your interpretation of what you have read as support for your position while I provide citations to demonstrate the point I am trying to make. If you would prove me wrong you need to show how I have misunderstood the quote or misunderstood the context. I am not giving you my personal understanding of the moral law; I am trying to present what the Church is saying.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
Since both Augustine and Aquinas quote St. Paul, who was manifestly not speaking solely of a just state, I disagree with you. Jesus himself acknowledged that Pilate’s authority came from God and not many will argue that his was a just society
As the principle is not that of Augustine and Aquinas but rather of Paul, yes it does apply.
*It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. *(Innocent I, 405 AD)
Ender
- Status