Section 2267 is such a muddle. This claim, for example, is simply incorrect. Aside from being JPII’s personal opinion, as the article I linked to showed, the belief that simply because someone is in prison renders him incapable of doing harm is not supported by the facts.
Yes, I was referring to you. Bold is my post and italitic is yours.
There was a great post (i think this thread) about how the Church along with each of us conforms more closely to Christ as time passes.
I said simply that society is better protected by using the death penalty than by not using it.
To end this between you and I, can you forward me some stats I keep hearing about… I mean, seriously we keep going around in circles and you are just giving me your opinion. If you want me to change my opinion (which I most certainly will if evidence leads me there) then show me the money… I mean, facts.
The hand that points to the moon is not the moon…the only absolute truth is God himself. Changes in the church including Just War Theory, support for Capital Punishment, Vatican II, etc will take centuries to discern. It is only when the faithful engage in open discussion do we place a mirror on the Church and allow her to both deny Christ, as Peter did, and seek to right herself on the seas of history. While it is hard for many to accept, to love the church we must also be willing to draw into question movements that are presently seeds and have not born their truth in time.
One thing at a time. Let me start by clarifying the claim I’m making.
Since I never made such a claim I wonder how you can dispute it. My comment (again) was that using the death penalty provides more protection than not using it which boils down to this specific claim:
I don’t think you really understand the nature of morality or of what the Church claims about herself. Morality does not change with time and place but is constant in every place and age. The Church for her part makes some rather strong claims about her ability to discern what those moral laws are, claims which, if you are right, are invalid.
The Church further leaves it to the individual Catholic conscience to decide for one’s self, or the freedom to not decide at all, or the freedom to decide differently case by case. The Church has stated it’s opinion for the benefits of those who wish to have a written code. I use my free will to CHOOSE to bind myself to the Church and all her teachings, and I don’t sweat it. I have faith that the Church will always lead me in at least the right direction, even in non-dogmatic matters, and I no longer have to argue endlessly over my deeply fallable personal opinions and my poor abilities with interpersonal debate. (thank the Lord for apologists)
Well, yes and no. My opinion is at variance with 2267 but not with 2266 or 2260, and conversely anyone who accepts 2267 also has an opinion which varies from the Catechism since one cannot accept all three of those sections. Further, while my opinion may vary from (part of) this Catechism it is very much in accord with the Catechism of Pius X, the Baltimore Catechism, the Catechism of Trent, and the Catechism of Aquinas. And of course everyone who accepts 2267 is at variance with those catechisms - not to mention the teaching of practically everyone else in Church history who has spoken on this topic.
more innocent people will die at the hands of repeat murderers than will die from being improperly executed for crimes they did not commit.
I take your same approach (belief) because frankly its a great source of freedom and protection. Our goal is to have a well-formed conscience!The Church further leaves it to the individual Catholic conscience to decide for one’s self, or the freedom to not decide at all, or the freedom to decide differently case by case. The Church has stated it’s opinion for the benefits of those who wish to have a written code. I use my free will to CHOOSE to bind myself to the Church and all her teachings, and I don’t sweat it. I have faith that the Church will always lead me in at least the right direction, even in non-dogmatic matters, and I no longer have to argue endlessly over my deeply fallable personal opinions and my poor abilities with interpersonal debate. (thank the Lord for apologists)
Anyway, you have an opinion which varies with the Catechism, and this is one of those areas where I believe that doesn’t put one’s soul at peril in any way, so may God bless and keep you.
Steven
It is not completely clear what you mean here, but the Church absolutely does not justify all moral choices made by the individual’s conscience. What she teaches is that “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions” so that he can* “assume responsibility for the acts performed.”* That is, if your conscience leads you astray, you may nevertheless be held responsible for your acts. “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments. This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility … In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” (CCC 1781 - 1791)
It is not her opinion which the Church gives us; what we’re getting comes from higher up the food chain than that.
The Church is worth saving AND the Church is not God. It is when you permit yourself to accept the humanity of the church that you can come to love her, despite her stumbles and missteps, as holy and a force for good without making the mistake of elevating her to the stature of God or idol.
FYI: Your statistics are not applicable to the statement you quoted. your statistics reflect the percentage of people who accept Christ’s church but do not reflect the accuracy how the Church conforms to Christ ('s will). As with any study, additional information brings us to a more detailed understanding. after 2000 years of revelation we have more knowledge than after 100 years. Each additional revalation brings us closer.
I believe that you are going around in circles because you are not addressing all of the aspects of this argument. You are only addressing the option of death or life in prison under the current penal system. As a result it seems like you have gone into a debate of how many innocent people being killed by repeat offenders justifies innocent people being executed. You are not addressing how many innocent people are dying because of the unwillingness of government officials to tighten up the penal system. You are also not addressing how many innocent people die in the first offense because criminals do not fear the penal system and because we are unwilling to address criminal activity before it rises to the level of murder.
True - I have been trying to address a single point. In response to the argument against the death penalty that an innocent person may be executed I responded that more innocent people will die from not using it than from using it.
There are any number of valid complaints that can be raised about our current penal system but this debate is specifically over the use of capital punishment so, as relevant as your points may be to the penal system in general, they are not relevant to the specific topic raised by the OP.
It is no more justifiable to say that the execution of an innocent person is murder than to say that any other unintended death is murder. That is not a valid statement. Seriously, we should be able to distinguish between tragic error and murder. Let’s not play word games.