Virginia bishops urge Catholics to shift focus of death penalty debate

[Ender]

Most of us certainly understand that a death sentence had practical purposes in the administration of civil justice in the distant and not so distant past…

Let’s think about this for a moment. What is justice? It is simply “*rendering to each one his right.” *That is, treating a person in accordance with his own actions:*We speak of merit and demerit, in relation to retribution, rendered according to justice. Now, retribution according to justice is rendered to a man, by reason of his having done something to another’s advantage or hurt. *(Aquinas)
This is of course exactly what the church teaches, and why she says the State has a *"**duty *to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime." Now, why is it asserted that its use today is “an offense to our 'civilisation”?

What is happening here is that justice is being conflated with security. We no longer need it (it is asserted) to protect ourselves, therefore its use is barbaric. The thing is, security is no part of justice; if capital punishment was a just punishment in the past - a point already conceded - then it is equally just today.

It is important to recognize that the State may not impose the punishment that is needed for protection if it is unjust. The obligation is to impose a punishment that is just, even if it does not provide protection…and even if it is not needed for protection.

This is what has evolved regarding capital punishment. It has served the good of the community…

Again, this approach divorces punishment from the concept of justice, and once the significance of justice is lost, there are no limitations on punishment. The “good of the community”, which will be defined by those who have the authority to do so, will determine who gets punished and how. Once justice has been removed from consideration the only concern left is: what benefits us? Justice should not be viewed as a commodity we use only when it is beneficial to do so.

The Church’s role in the community is as the moral compass. She speaks about Gods will for man in civil life. How ridiculous to call the Churchs contribution ‘opinion’ as Ender does.

Is it ridiculous then to cite the church’s own explanation?*405.Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are **preferred *as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835]
*[835] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267. *
(Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)
I’m sure there is some subtle difference between an opinion and a preference, but that difference is not immediately obvious. Have you forgotten this citation already?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Is it ridiculous then to cite the church’s own explanation?*405.Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are **preferred ***as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835]
*[835] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2267. *
(Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)
I’m sure there is some subtle difference between an opinion and a preference, but that difference is not immediately obvious. Have you forgotten this citation already?

Ender

Lets take a good honest look at paragraph 405 without cherry picking dishonestly.

1. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”.[833] Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”.[834] Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835] The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”.[836] The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.

It begins with the clear position of ‘The Church’. We aren’t led in any way shape or form to believe that this view is the irrelevant view of one or two random Popes giving personal opinions of no consequence.

The paragraph ends by saying that the movement in the community to abolish the death penalty is the ’visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness’.

This is what the Church is saying with the view to affirm the movement as a good one and in keeping with Gods will. It is not a mere cultural fashion statement according to the Church. It is a movement that is arising from 'heightened moral awareness’.

It’s a moral movement and that is a serious business and one which a Catholic especially would have to be pretty brazen to blow off.

 

[Ender]

Lets take a good honest look at paragraph 405 without cherry picking dishonestly.

Your continued uncharitable attacks on me likely got the other thread on capital punishment closed; keep it up and you’ll get this one closed as well.

It begins with the clear position of ‘The Church’. We aren’t led in any way shape or form to believe that this view is the irrelevant view of one or two random Popes giving personal opinions of no consequence.

This is true, but you’re arguing with yourself (will you start insulting yourself now?) since this assertion is entirely your own and bears no resemblance whatever to anything I’ve ever said. It is also a distraction meant to deflect attention from the point I actually made: that the objection to the use of capital punishment is a preference.

The paragraph ends by saying that the movement in the community to abolish the death penalty is the ’visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness’.

This too is true. It is also (yet again) irrelevant to the point I’ve been discussing.

It’s a moral movement and that is a serious business and one which a Catholic especially would have to be pretty brazen to blow off.

More brazen than ignoring the teachings on offenses against truth?

Ender

 

[Sirach2]

Thank you, LongingSoul. I think you have a hard battle trying to convince Ender of the Bishops’ sentiments and shepherding. Whether there were zero or 152 prisoners facing capital punishment, is a moot point made just to be contentious.

The real issue is whether the Church has the authority through its Bishops to instruct the faithful according to what they determine is God’s will in this matter. To argue against this is to refuse submission to what they have determined as a directive.

“But our faith challenges us to declare sacred even the least lovable among us, those convicted of committing brutal crimes which have brought them the ultimate penalty, the penalty of death,” the bishops said.

 

[Ender]

Thank you, LongingSoul. I think you have a hard battle trying to convince Ender of the Bishops’ sentiments and shepherding.

Nonsense, I understand quite well what the bishops’ sentiments are. We have a difference of opinion about the matter.

Whether there were zero or 152 prisoners facing capital punishment, is a moot point made just to be contentious.

The point is hardly moot when the number is used as a practical argument against capital punishment. The argument, in case you forgot, is that we should not put people to death because an innocent person might be executed. To lend credence to the claim, it is asserted that 152 innocent people have been rescued from death row. It ought to matter that this number is grossly exaggerated - and when did the truth become moot?

The real issue is whether the Church has the authority through its Bishops to instruct the faithful according to what they determine is God’s will in this matter. To argue against this is to refuse submission to what they have determined as a directive.

This too is incorrect. There is no obligation to submit to their judgment.*…prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Dulles)
Ender

 

[Sirach2]

To lend credence to the claim, it is asserted that 152 innocent people have been rescued from death row. It ought to matter that this number is grossly exaggerated - and when did the truth become moot?

False. Read the document again. Their position is not based on these numbers, for their comment was that they “noted” the numbers … not that they based their teaching upon it. Notation is only a side bar, not a basis.

The Virginia bishops’ statement noted that since 1973, 152 death row inmates nationwide, including one in Virginia, have been exonerated.

Citing the words of Pope Francis in opposing capital punishment …

They pointed to the tenets of Catholic teaching, which hold that all human life is sacred …

We are having the wrong debate," the two bishops said. "We should no longer debate which inmates we execute and how we execute them. Instead, we should debate this: If all human lives are sacred and if a civilized society such as ours can seek redress and protect itself by means other than taking a human life, why are we continuing to execute people?"

This is certainly far more indicative of their teaching than merely “noting” numbers … which, as I stated, is moot.

Ender:

This too is incorrect. There is no obligation to submit to their judgment.
*To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. *(Dulles)

You need to re-examine Cardinal Dulles’ true assessment, which does not agree with yours in any way whatsoever.

“Pope John Paul II and the bishops, in my opinion, have never said that the death penalty is unjust in principle or that it is a violation of the criminal´s right to life,” he said. "But it is their considered opinion that the death penalty should be applied only in rare and extreme cases."

"I support their judgment for a variety of reasons which I have spelled out elsewhere," Cardinal Dulles added. “Among them would be the likelihood of miscarriages of justice, the difficulty of assessing the personal guilt of the offender, and the danger of fostering a mentality of vindictiveness, which would be contrary to the teaching of the Gospel.”

Furthermore, the documents of both Vatican I and II affirm and teach that we must give religious assent (submission) when the hierarchy teaches on faith, morals and discipline. I disagree with you that this is an arbitrary issue the faithful may set aside at will or whim. You are doing a great disservice to the faithful who read these forums, with your armchair theology, Ender.

 

[Sirach2]

In my post #5, I mentioned that I had read Michael Morton’s book, Getting Life. In his later years of his 25-year life sentence, he had a profound conversion experience where he encountered God intimately one night. Had he been executed in those early years, there would be no chance whatsoever of his repentance and radical turnaround to live for God. If for no other reason than to give prisoners an extended sentence so that God could touch their hearts, it is worth withholding the death penalty. I know personally of prisoners whose lives are changed forever through a long prison sentence. It is worth considering, for God does not desire the death of sinners, but that they convert and live.

 

[Ender]

False. Read the document again. Their position is not based on these numbers, for their comment was that they “noted” the numbers … not that they based their teaching upon it. Notation is only a side bar, not a basis.

This entire exchange started with my claiming the assertion by the bishops (in the OP) that “*since 1973, 152 death row inmates nationwide have been exonerated” was demonstrably untrue. *You challenged my claim: “And you know this is true … HOW???” Now that I have cited a competent authority backing up my position you asserted both that the number was irrelevant, and that I only defended my assertion to be contentious. If the number is irrelevant why did you challenge me in the first place, and how are you justified in calling me contentious for providing the proof you demanded?

You need to re-examine Cardinal Dulles’ true assessment, which does not agree with yours in any way whatsoever.

Since there is nothing in the Dulles article you cited that even vaguely relates to my citation I can only assume you didn’t read it yourself or you cited the wrong article. Perhaps you can cite a comment he makes …anywhere… that contradicts the assertion he made in the citation I provided.

Furthermore, the documents of both Vatican I and II affirm and teach that we must give religious assent (submission) when the hierarchy teaches on faith, morals and discipline.

And what do the documents of Vatican I and II say about the obligation to assent to prudential judgments?

I disagree with you that this is an arbitrary issue the faithful may set aside at will or whim.

Since I never made such an assertion I can only wonder why you find it appropriate to put words in my mouth. Do you consider this an appropriate debate technique?

You are doing a great disservice to the faithful who read these forums, with your armchair theology, Ender.

I understand your concern that my arguments are more soundly constructed than yours and are likely to be more influential as a result, but I have never had to distort your comments in order to respond to them.

Ender

 

[pianistclare]

This is a good point. I, and others in my parish correspond with a guy on death row. He is an artist, developing his talents in his cell. He did a fabulous pen and ink Good Shepherd for our parish as well as a pastel of our patron saint.
His words to the leadership of our parish were:
*Spend your time educating the children and youth for the PREVENTION of crime. Don’t bother to come to see me. I have repented, and I cannot change my sentence.One day, I will go home to be with God, for I know He has forgiven me. If my story saves just one child from the horrible mistakes I have made in my life, it’s worth that 14 years I’ve been on death row.
I can’t complain. I married and had children. They have written me off. I understand how they feel. I shamed them, have never once had a visitor except for prison ministry people form the Methodist church, God love them. They are my new family, as you people are who write to me. I’ve seen the Atlantic ocean. Some of the men in here entered when they were 18 and have never been outside of their county. God gave me lots of opportunities, and I foolishly committed a horrible crime. I am doing my time, trying to create pictures form the Scriptures to inspire people to NOT step away from the Lord, like I did.
But I’m back. I ask fro forgiveness all day, every day. I pray all the time, and I have hope that this life is not the end for me. But one day, my number will be up. Don’t fret over me being gone. Just tell the kids the truth of it. . *

In my post #5, I mentioned that I had read Michael Morton’s book, Getting Life. In his later years of his 25-year life sentence, he had a profound conversion experience where he encountered God intimately one night. Had he been executed in those early years, there would be no chance whatsoever of his repentance and radical turnaround to live for God. If for no other reason than to give prisoners an extended sentence so that God could touch their hearts, it is worth withholding the death penalty. I know personally of prisoners whose lives are changed forever through a long prison sentence. It is worth considering, for God does not desire the death of sinners, but that they convert and live.

 

[Ender]

In my post #5, I mentioned that I had read Michael Morton’s book, Getting Life. In his later years of his 25-year life sentence, he had a profound conversion experience where he encountered God intimately one night. Had he been executed in those early years, there would be no chance whatsoever of his repentance and radical turnaround to live for God. If for no other reason than to give prisoners an extended sentence so that God could touch their hearts, it is worth withholding the death penalty. I know personally of prisoners whose lives are changed forever through a long prison sentence. It is worth considering, for God does not desire the death of sinners, but that they convert and live.

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Morton’s conversion. That said, neither do I find his experience an argument against capital punishment. Aquinas addressed - and rejected - this position.*“The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind.” *
Further, the church herself cites an example of capital punishment as contributing “to the correction of the offender” 67. See CCC 2266, endnote 67. This refers to Lk 23:40-43 which is the execution of the good thief crucified with Christ.

Finally, this belief puts limitations on what God can accomplish.*Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications. *(Romano Amerio)
Ender

 

[Sirach2]

Now that I have cited a competent authority backing up my position you asserted both that the number was irrelevant, and that I only defended my assertion to be contentious. If the number is irrelevant why did you challenge me in the first place, and how are you justified in calling me contentious for providing the proof you demanded?

I believe it was the Holy Spirit who caused me to refocus. The numbers are irrelevant, even though both of us posted a report using them.

Since there is nothing in the Dulles article you cited that even vaguely relates to my citation I can only assume you didn’t read it yourself or you cited the wrong article.

My point in the Zenit article was to demonstrate that, even though you claim he dispenses with prudential judgments as not being binding, he is not in accord with your principle that would retain capital punishment. That’s important. And he’s only ONE Cardinal, who is not invested with the authority of the College of Bishops or the papal office, to make such a pronouncement about prudential judgments. I would need more evidence than this single viewpoint.

And what do the documents of Vatican I and II say about the obligation to assent to prudential judgments?

First Vatican Council
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this, not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

Since I never made such an assertion I can only wonder why you find it appropriate to put words in my mouth. Do you consider this an appropriate debate technique?

How about some honesty here, Ender? From inception, here and elsewhere, you have denounced LongingSoul’s posts with rhetoric unbecoming a member of this forum … all the while, insisting that ONLY YOUR information and POV is true and correct. This is dishonest and prideful, IMO, and fails to consider that other opinions are just as valid, if not more so. This puts the reader at a disadvantage, for in the last analysis, you are not the Magisterium, and the material you post is just your opinion, nothing more. It is not theology etched in stone to be disseminated and absorbed by the reader.

Now if you’ll excuse me, good day.

 

[LongingSoul]

Your continued uncharitable attacks on me likely got the other thread on capital punishment closed; keep it up and you’ll get this one closed as well.

It was your offensive post (which was subsequently deleted) about the hierarchy of the Catholic Church being ignorant and theologically mistaken which set the tone of the thread. It is your dismissal of the authority of the Church in every one of these threads that sets the tone.

This is true, but you’re arguing with yourself (will you start insulting yourself now?) since this assertion is entirely your own and bears no resemblance whatever to anything I’ve ever said. It is also a distraction meant to deflect attention from the point I actually made: that the objection to the use of capital punishment is a preference.

Are you claiming that paragraph 405 states that the objection to the use of capital punishment is the preference?

Is that what you are claiming?

Are you saying that even though the Church states that the objection and abolition “is a visible manifestation of of heightened moral awareness.”?

1. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”.[833] Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”.[834] Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835] The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”.[836] The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.

 

[LongingSoul]

Thank you, LongingSoul. I think you have a hard battle trying to convince Ender of the Bishops’ sentiments and shepherding. Whether there were zero or 152 prisoners facing capital punishment, is a moot point made just to be contentious.

Yes, I long ago realised that there is a hostile agenda at play here that has nothing to do with true justice or Gods will for man. It’s a phenomenon that reminds me of Luthers rejection of the Popes authority and transference of that authority to temporal seats of power like the King. Its something that can be witnessed in other modern sects that have run with that error like scientology and the various other smallish hierarchical leader based cults. To be honest, the interaction feeds my curiosity about the error and danger of rejecting papal authority.

 

[Ender]

My point in the Zenit article was to demonstrate that, even though you claim he dispenses with prudential judgments as not being binding, he is not in accord with your principle that would retain capital punishment. That’s important.

Dulles asserted that prudential judgments do not require our assent. That statement is either true or false; I believe it to be true. He also asserted that the church’s teaching on capital punishment is a prudential judgment. That statement is also true or false. Again, I believe it is accurate. If both of his assertions are valid then there is no obligation for a Catholic to oppose the use of capital punishment.

And he’s only ONE Cardinal, who is not invested with the authority of the College of Bishops or the papal office, to make such a pronouncement about prudential judgments. I would need more evidence than this single viewpoint.

Which assertion needs more support: that prudential judgments don’t oblige our assent or that the objection to the use of capital punishment is prudential?

First Vatican Council
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this, not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

But this doesn’t address the question of prudential judgments, and the doctrines on capital punishment are not a part of the discipline and government of the church.

How about some honesty here, Ender? From inception, here and elsewhere, you have denounced LongingSoul’s posts with rhetoric unbecoming a member of this forum …

Yes I have, because they are scurrilous attacks against me personally. It is surprising the moderators have allowed them to continue for so long.

… all the while, insisting that ONLY YOUR information and POV is true and correct.

If you mean I believe my position is correct and I argue accordingly, that is true. That really is all I am guilty of.

This is dishonest and prideful…

My arguments may be aggressive - and they may even be wrong - but they never stoop to dishonesty. Prideful, now…

…and fails to consider that other opinions are just as valid, if not more so.

A position cannot be considered valid unless there is a valid argument to support it. I have in every instance addressed solely the arguments that have been presented. This is a debate forum, and that’s what I’ve been doing. I have a position on capital punishment that I strongly feel is valid and I have defended that position against anyone and everyone who has contested it. I have not avoided a single challenge. It may be that my tone has aggravated my opponents, but that is not an argument that my stance is invalid, still less that I have behaved dishonestly.

This puts the reader at a disadvantage, for in the last analysis, you are not the Magisterium, and the material you post is just your opinion, nothing more.

It is worth considering that I don’t simply post my opinion. There is no assertion I make that I cannot sustain with a relevant citation. It is not really my opinion that causes the problems; it is the fact that I am citing the opinions of people whose opinions actually matter.

Ender

 

[Sirach2]

I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of Morton’s conversion. That said, neither do I find his experience an argument against capital punishment. Aquinas addressed - and rejected - this position.

Aquinas is 12th century. Doctrine can and does develop - lawfully - and is capable of change. SAINT Pope John Paul II has written against this position, but of course, your saint must always be quoted, so that you may put down anything I wrote. Nothing new here.

 

[Ender]

It was your offensive post (which was subsequently deleted) about the hierarchy of the Catholic Church being ignorant and theologically mistaken which set the tone of the thread.

I have never asserted that the hierarchy of the church was either ignorant or theologically mistaken. Someone’s post may have been deleted but it wasn’t mine.

It is your dismissal of the authority of the Church in every one of these threads that sets the tone.

Once again you make an assertion that is flatly false. I have never dismissed the authority of the church, but since you claim that I have done so in every one of these threads it should be relatively simply for you to find support for your assertion. Let’s see an example of what you claim I do in “every” thread, and if you cannot support this charge with a citation from any thread, you need to retract it.

Are you claiming that paragraph 405 states that the objection to the use of capital punishment is the preference?

Yes, I’m pretty sure that is the meaning of the sentence that starts out…* “Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred*…”
It’s not clear what else those words could mean.

Are you saying that even though the Church states that the objection and abolition “is a visible manifestation of of heightened moral awareness.”?

Yep. Either that or the sentence you cite is a repudiation of the one I cited, which is not a comforting thought given that they both appear in the same paragraph.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I have never asserted that the hierarchy of the church was either ignorant or theologically mistaken. Someone’s post may have been deleted but it wasn’t mine.

Your first contentious post is rightly gone.

Once again you make an assertion that is flatly false. I have never dismissed the authority of the church, but since you claim that I have done so in every one of these threads it should be relatively simply for you to find support for your assertion. Let’s see an example of what you claim I do in “every” thread, and if you cannot support this charge with a citation from any thread, you need to retract it.

Each time you call the Popes encyclicals, catechism and letters, ‘opinions’ only, you dismiss the authority of the Church.

Yes, I’m pretty sure that is the meaning of the sentence that starts out…* “Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred*…”
It’s not clear what else those words could mean.

Your continual mistake is to read one word or phrase in isolation and out of context and spin your own meaning to it. Read the Compendium entry as a whole and the meaning will become clear as a bell to you.

405. The Church sees as a sign of hope “a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of ‘legitimate defence’ on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform”.[833] Whereas, presuming the full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the guilty party, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor”.[834] Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835] The growing number of countries adopting provisions to abolish the death penalty or suspend its application is also proof of the fact that cases in which it is absolutely necessary to execute the offender “are very rare, if not practically non-existent”.[836] The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of a heightened moral awareness.

The first few sentences are ‘the Church’ making an observation about the goodness of the growing public opposition to using the death penalty. It’s a sign of hope she says. She notes the fact that public safety can be achieved without use of the death penalty; a fact proved by the majority of the western worlds justice systems. She then reminds us that death as a punishment isn’t intrinsically evil and has a legitimate place in defense of human lives if there are no better options.

Then after that reflection on the civil use of the death penalty, the sentence "Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”… meaning that the civil authorities, as proven by the examples from around the world, prefer bloodless methods because it is more civilised to our 'heightened ’ moral sensibilities.

The preference talked about refers to the decisions of the many States around the world currently abolishing the death penalty. They prefer abolition. The*** objection itself*** is not a preference as the last sentences go on to establish. The objection the public is experiencing is the result of humanity’s “heightened moral awareness”.

Yep. Either that or the sentence you cite is a repudiation of the one I cited, which is not a comforting thought given that they both appear in the same paragraph.

You just read it wrong. No biggie. I’ve set you straight now.

 

[Sirach2]

Dulles asserted that prudential judgments do not require our assent. That statement is either true or false; I believe it to be true. He also asserted that the church’s teaching on capital punishment is a prudential judgment. That statement is also true or false. Again, I believe it is accurate. If both of his assertions are valid then there is no obligation for a Catholic to oppose the use of capital punishment.

A Catholic may not oppose or affirm anything on his own initiative (including capital punishment). We may petition for a change through proper channels, but unless the universal magisterium of the Church teaches it, in unison with College of Bishops united with the Pope, no one is free to pick and choose based on one isolated statement of a single clergyman. You may try to spin it any which way you can, but it carries no weight.

Capital punishment are not a part of the discipline and government of the church.

Says you, based solely on slim evidence that will admit no development in doctrine. Since the Church in former times permitted this, She is forever bound, in your opinion. Yet Pope JPII and a number of bishops are redirecting us to consider this issue in light of developing doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of life. You continually discount this as though it were not a matter of fact or importance.

It is worth considering that I don’t simply post my opinion. There is no assertion I make that I cannot sustain with a relevant citation.

This is no different than sola scripturists who cherry-pick a verse to back up their error, while failing to understand that verse in connection with the whole of scripture teaching. It’s called “spin” and you do it effectively.

There is no futility worse than debating a person who is closed-minded.

 

[Peebo]

adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/new-details-reveal-blood-soaked-execution-of-death-row-inmate-clayton-lockett-in-oklahoma/story-fni6um3i-1227388158184

Here is discription of a botched execution carried out in Oklahoma…if the Supreme Court decides that the use of lethal injection is unconstitutional then Oklahoma will revert back to execution by the electric chair…only in America.

 

[Ender]

Your first contentious post is rightly gone.

This is false. As I said, if a post was removed it wasn’t mine. I am unaware of any post of mine that has been removed from this thread. Normally the removal of a post is also accompanied by a sanction from a moderator. I have not received that either.

Each time you call the Popes encyclicals, catechism and letters, ‘opinions’ only, you dismiss the authority of the Church.

Yet again you state a falsehood. Beyond that you have changed the form of your earlier distortion. As I said, nowhere have I challenged the authority of the church, a point you tacitly acknowledge with the backpedaling you do here. If I call a particular statement a prudential judgment, and it is just that, then where is my error? If a statement I label an opinion is in fact a doctrine, does that constitute dismissing the authority of the church, or is it a simple error?

The only challenge I have offered is to you, to either support your false charges or retract them. That they are unsupportable is becoming more and more obvious to those who read these exchanges, as you are unable to sustain a single one of them.

Your continual mistake is to read one word or phrase in isolation and out of context and spin your own meaning to it.

Here is the entire sentence at issue:Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.[835]The part in black is a statement of what, the part in blue is an explanation of why. The explanation of why something is preferred does not change what is preferred. The second part of that sentence - and all of the other sentences in that paragraph - have no effect on that declaration. How could they? How reasonable is it to assert that the statement above doesn’t really mean what it says because other statements alter its meaning?

Then after that reflection on the civil use of the death penalty, the sentence "Bloodless methods of deterrence and punishment are preferred as “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”… meaning that the civil authorities, as proven by the examples from around the world, prefer bloodless methods because it is more civilised to our 'heightened ’ moral sensibilities.

The footnote for this sentence [835] refers to CCC 2267. That is, this passage is an explanation of what 2267 is saying, and specifically it refers directly to the second sentence in 2267…the one that contains the observation that "public authority should limit itself…". The explanation is that this is a statement of the preferred action. It is a recommendation of what States ought to do, not an observation about what they are already doing. The church’s documents do not explain what States believe; they set out what the church believes.

Ender