Virginia bishops urge Catholics to shift focus of death penalty debate

[Sirach2]

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.

Haven’t you had enough, Ender? Proof is in the puddin’, as they say. In this post of mine, I quoted a section of your previous post, but it is nowhere to be found prior to mine. It was removed, as L.S. stated. It did not need a moderator notice to you, since they may remove a post without penalty or explanation…

 

[Ender]

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.

How is it that you are justified in defining the nature of 2267 but I am not? It is simply undeniable that part of 2267 contains prudential judgment, and we don’t need a formal declaration of the magisterium to make that determination. Much of what is said in the catechism requires interpretation and I see no reason to assume that your interpretations are justified and mine are not.

Says you, based solely on slim evidence that will admit no development in doctrine.

The repudiation of doctrine is not development.A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started.* (Cardinal Newman)*

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.

Well, I don’t know what a Carmelite OCDS is but I have to say I’m disappointed one would stoop to this, but I’ll challenge you just like I did LongingSoul: prove your slander or retract it. Highlight any statement I’ve made that you think demonstrates cherry-picking - and define what you think cherry-picking is. I am a lot better prepared to defend my statements than you are to defend your insults. Let’s see where the falsehoods lie.

Ender

 

[SWolf]

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.

A development in doctrine can not contradict what was previously taught, but can only clarify it. If the Church stated the Death Penalty is morally acceptable to protect the common good, and then said the Death Penalty is intrinsically evil, that is a rupture, not a development. the Church would be contradicting herself. If the Church said the Death Penalty as an execution of Justice is intrinsically immoral, then the Church is again contradicting herself. The Holy Spirit has not failed the Church at any point in history, so matters of faith and morals are not subject to change, only clarification.

If the Church says, in these times, the death penalty is no longer necessary, that is not an infallible statement of faith and morals, as it only pertains to a certain time and place. We are required to listen, but not necessarily to assent. If full assent is necessary in every statement the Church makes, there’s no room for individual prudential judgement.

 

[Ender]

Haven’t you had enough, Ender? Proof is in the puddin’, as they say. In this post of mine, I quoted a section of your previous post, but it is nowhere to be found prior to mine. It was removed, as L.S. stated. It did not need a moderator notice to you, since they may remove a post without penalty or explanation…

Well, I had no idea it was removed, but that probably explains pnewton’s post - and why mine was removed:I am somewhat shock with the false accusation that a bishop is stating something full of theological error. There is no theological error and I note that no specific heresy was mentioned. I resent the slander against any bishop, even more so on this website. Perhaps the rules of this forum need to be double-checked, and then they should be followed with a modicum of integrity.
The only problem is that I never said or implied a bishop was stating a theological error. What I said - and what you cited - was specific to the assertion that 152 people on death row had been exonerated. Given that I provided very strong evidence that my statement was true, I’m not sure where the problem lies. I even explicitly stated (again, you included this in your citation) that "… those who fabricated [this claim] know it, but those who repeat it in all probability do not."

It was not my statement that was problematic but pnewton’s misunderstanding of it. You read what I wrote, but you apparently interpreted it as I meant it as you challenged only my claim about the number exonerated. I’ll stand by what I wrote, whatever it was.

Ender

 

[Sirach2]

A development in doctrine can not contradict what was previously taught, but can only clarify it. If the Church stated the Death Penalty is morally acceptable to protect the common good, and then said the Death Penalty is intrinsically evil, that is a rupture, not a development. the Church would be contradicting herself.

I’m very familiar with Dei Verbum on development of doctrine. CA has a brief summary in this tract which states:

As these and many other cases demonstrate, doctrinal questions can remain in a not-yet-fully-defined state for years. [Capital punishment is one of those issues] The Church has never felt the need to define formally what there has been no particular pressure to define. Why didn’t Rome issue a laundry list of definitions in the early days and let it go at that? Why wasn’t an end-run made around all these troubles that plagued Christianity precisely because things were unclear? The remote reason is that God has had his own timetable and set of reasons (to which we aren’t privy) for keeping it.

To make a new definition, to clear up some dogmatic confusion, they first have to use human reason, operating on what is known to date, to be able to teach more precisely what is to be held as true.

Since the Church has not yet defined the morality in our age with regard to capital punishment, then there cannot be a rupture in a formally declared tenet, if She were to further clarify the position. I seriously doubt the Church will declare that it is evil, but She could do so, if the Spirit were to direct the Magisterium to understand God’s will in a manner different than formerly understood.

Already, Pope JPII and several bishops are leaning toward abolishing it … not necessarily by calling an evil, but in order to move in fuller accord with the gospel of life. A devout Catholic will always align their thinking on any issue with the Mind of the Church. If one wishes to use “prudential judgment” to oppose it, that is not my concern. Each person must come to their own discernment in conscience, and for those decisions, I have no responsibility.

The harm to the faithful in citing this publicly here, is implying that they do not need to align their morals with present Church understanding as held by the bishops, and the position of JPII — it’s perfectly ok to oppose them.

 

[pianistclare]

I’m very familiar with Dei Verbum on development of doctrine. CA has a brief summary in this tract which states:

Since the Church has not yet defined the morality in our age with regard to capital punishment, then there cannot be a rupture in a formally declared tenet, if She were to further clarify the position. I seriously doubt the Church will declare that it is evil, but She could do so, if the Spirit were to direct the Magisterium to understand God’s will in a manner different than formerly understood.

Already, Pope JPII and several bishops are leaning toward abolishing it … not necessarily by calling an evil, but in order to move in fuller accord with the gospel of life. A devout Catholic will always align their thinking on any issue with the Mind of the Church. If one wishes to use “prudential judgment” to oppose it, that is not my concern. Each person must come to their own discernment in conscience, and for those decisions, I have no responsibility.

The harm to the faithful in citing this publicly here, is implying that they do not need to align their morals with present Church understanding as held by the bishops, and the position of JPII — it’s perfectly ok to oppose them.

That’s a good point. We al know what happens when the faithful, who likely never read any of these wonderful documents, or Church Fathers or Popes, decide that they can just decide for themselves.
Don’t we call those “cafeteria Catholics?”
Seriously though, it does a lot of harm, particularly for those who read CAF, but never post a question, seeking clarification. Indeed, sometimes these discussions get really wordy and documents fly back and forth, when the main point to be taken is
:the Church has spoken…we may not agree or understand it fully, but the Church indeed has a lot to say on things. But the bottom line is, we are a people of LIFE.
Judgment is the Lord’s. May God have mercy on all of us, sinners alike.

 

[SWolf]

I’m very familiar with Dei Verbum on development of doctrine. CA has a brief summary in this tract which states:

She could do so, if the Spirit were to direct the Magisterium to understand God’s will in a manner different than formerly understood.

Actually, not even the Pope and Bishops can do a reversal on a matter of faith and morals. It would be equivalent to a Pope saying Arianism is actually right.

If one wishes to use “prudential judgment” to oppose it, that is not my concern. Each person must come to their own discernment in conscience, and for those decisions, I have no responsibility.

Good! Agreement!

The harm to the faithful in citing this publicly here, is implying that they do not need to align their morals with present Church understanding as held by the bishops, and the position of JPII — it’s perfectly ok to oppose them.

PRESENT Church understanding should be able to point to the past for support of their decisions.

There’s plenty of outright rejection of Bishops issues that are NOT prudential judgments on this forum(gay marriage, abortion, etc.), I hardly see the death penalty as even a blip on the radar that one disagrees with the prudential judgement of Bishops regarding the Death Penalty’s use in the present day. This goes also to judgments on American Immigration, Health Care, etc. A cataclysm could happen tomorrow that would make the previous prudential pronouncements by our leaders moot by a whole new current reality.

 

[LongingSoul]

I had previously found an interesting article in a Sydney Catholic journal (which is still the national Catholic paper to this day). It was from 1924 as the Australian states were starting to abolish the death penalty.

"Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?

This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no. Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6).** In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. **Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system.
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/123253640

The gist of the article points to a similar misunderstanding of the nature of capital punishment that the Church is having to address today nearly a century later. Capital punishment was mistaken as a divine command. An order from God to use it regardless of how it impacted the common good.

The Magisterium hasn’t intervened in any way over the last century as capital punishment has been being abolished around the world. As the article says “the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers.”

The way I see the Churchs current strong position is not so much telling secular states what to do… but she is counteracting that erroneous belief that capital punishment is a divine command… a default as ender calls it… that trumps the natural movement of society away from its use. The Church stresses that this movement is good. It is ‘a sign of hope’. It is the result of ‘heightened moral awareness’.

So the big obstacle is not people who genuinely argue that it is still necessary for societies safety… that’s an acceptable position especially for those parties invested in protection of society. But the obstacle is those who promote it as* necessary* for justice via Gods direct communication to Noah.

 

[Robert_Bay]

MODERATOR REMINDER

Please charitably discuss the issues not each other nor how each other post

 

[LongingSoul]

Actually, not even the Pope and Bishops can do a reversal on a matter of faith and morals. It would be equivalent to a Pope saying Arianism is actually right.

Doctrine literally means ‘teaching’ and in each age it is the Churchs most important role to teach the Truths according to the understanding and needs of the faithful. That can actually mean that from age to age different expressions of Truth seem contradictory despite being far from it.

Imagine the absolute necessity of fire 2000 years ago. One might say that fire is an absolute necessity for healthy food preparation, for warmth and for light. An incontrovertible necessity. Fast forward 2000 years and we no longer say that. Due to electricity, microwave, solar panelling, etc… we can live in a superior way without hint of fire. The truth hasn’t changed but because of progress in understanding and innovation, it has become something more clear than a primitive belief that fire is almost sacred to life.

 

[graciew]

. The truth hasn’t changed but because of progress in understanding and innovation, it has become something more clear than a primitive belief that fire is almost sacred to life.

On a side note,you will probably enjoy this,Longing Soul.
Fire ( fuego,sp)comes from ,“focus " in Latin. Our Spanish word for " home” is " hogar" . This word,hogar,comes from focus,

So " home" (Hogar) is a place where there is a fire constantly lit up, the family sitting a round it as primitively,for warmth and protection and food and life.

There is still today something sacred about that fire burning with a family sitting around it.
I have always found the word " Hogar" very beautiful. Timeless.
God bless you all.

 

[pnewton]

Another word for teaching, is doctrine. Prudential judgment is not doctrine. There fore this assertion attributed to Cardinal Dulles is that Church doctrine is not doctrine. I believe this to be a case where a statement is taken out of context, that is proof-texted, rather that Cardinal Dulles being illogical.

No, one is not obligated to accept ever are of judgment that every bishop utters. However, in the case of the death penalty, the preponderance of opinion is over-whelming. To disagree with most bishops (every one, as far as I can tell) and agree with none, even in an area of judgment, seems too self-assured for me. At the least, I would think a Catholic would struggle to understand the mind of the Church in this, rather than struggle to convert other Catholic to their someone isolate opinions.

 

[Sirach2]

No, one is not obligated to accept every area of judgment that every bishop utters. However, in the case of the death penalty, the preponderance of opinion is over-whelming. To disagree with most bishops (every one, as far as I can tell) and agree with none, even in an area of judgment, seems too self-assured for me. At the least, I would think a Catholic would struggle to understand the mind of the Church in this, rather than struggle to convert other Catholic to their someone isolate opinions.

Well said.

 

[adrift]

Since the Church has not yet defined the morality in our age with regard to capital punishment, then there cannot be a rupture in a formally declared tenet, if She were to further clarify the position.

I am sure this makes perfect sense to you but it is confusing to me. The morality of capital punishment has been dealt with by the Church, your designation of “our age” seems to indicate that morality is redefined with the ages. If this is what you are saying, it is not a true statement. The Church has stated and has not changed the position that capital punishment is moral. The only development is should it be used.

I seriously doubt the Church will declare that it is evil, but She could do so, if the Spirit were to direct the Magisterium to understand God’s will in a manner different than formerly understood.

Again you are wrong. It is the same as saying that Jesus is not God could be declared if the Spirit were to direct the Magisterium to understand God’s will in a manner different than formerly understood. Not going to happen in either case.

Already, Pope JPII and several bishops are leaning toward abolishing it … not necessarily by calling an evil, but in order to move in fuller accord with the gospel of life. A devout Catholic will always align their thinking on any issue with the Mind of the Church. If one wishes to use “prudential judgment” to oppose it, that is not my concern. Each person must come to their own discernment in conscience, and for those decisions, I have no responsibility.

The harm to the faithful in citing this publicly here, is implying that they do not need to align their morals with present Church understanding as held by the bishops, and the position of JPII — it’s perfectly ok to oppose them.

A position with which the Church concurs. My emphasis:

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in working to end the use of the death penalty. We seek to help build a culture of life in which our nation will no longer try to teach that killing is wrong by killing those who kill.
—USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death

 

[Sirach2]

Again you are wrong. It is the same as saying that Jesus is not God could be declared if the Spirit were to direct the Magisterium to understand God’s will in a manner different than formerly understood.

This is so absurd that it requires no response whatsoever. Enough said.
Take it to our last three popes.

Pope Frances echoes the pleas of Benedict XVI and John Paul II to abolish capital punishment.
ncregister.com/daily-news/papal-message-reaffirms-call-to-abolish-death-penalty

 

[Ender]

Another word for teaching, is doctrine. Prudential judgment is not doctrine. There fore this assertion attributed to Cardinal Dulles is that Church doctrine is not doctrine. I believe this to be a case where a statement is taken out of context, that is proof-texted, rather that Cardinal Dulles being illogical.

For the time being my focus on this forum is going to turn from defending my position on capital punishment to defending my personal integrity against the charges that have been leveled against me. If you or anyone else is going to level such an accusation you had better be prepared to defend it because I’m not letting it go.

Take this charge of proof-texting (which means taking something out of context to imply the author took a position not supported by the body of his work.) If you had read Dulles’ article you would know my citation was accurate. Here it is (again) in its entirety. This article was originally presented in First Things. My citation is from a copy of the article at the Catholic Education Resource Center. Here is how they introduce the article:After providing a survey of the complex question of capital punishment Cardinal Dulles writes that: “The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good.”
What follows is from the article itself:*The United States bishops, for their part, had already declared in their majority statement of 1980 that “in the conditions of contemporary American society, the legitimate purposes of punishment do not justify the imposition of the death penalty.” Since that time they have repeatedly intervened to ask for clemency in particular cases. Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. *

*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. But the classical tradition held that the State should not exercise this right when the evil effects outweigh the good effects. Thus the principle still leaves open the question whether and when the death penalty ought to be applied. The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position. *
Now, you have access to the article. You can compare what Dulles wrote with what I claimed he wrote. You therefore have everything available to you to substantiate your charge of deception on my part. So: substantiate it or retract it.

Ender

 

[Sirach2]

Now, you have access to the article. You can compare what Dulles wrote with what I claimed he wrote. You therefore have everything available to you to substantiate your charge of deception on my part. So: substantiate it or retract it.
Ender

You suffer from tunnel vision, Ender, since your fixation with prudential judgment is not what folks are objecting to. Rather - based on this single Cardinal’s statement - you fail to align your position with the Mind of the Church, as expressed by popes, bishops, and yes EVEN Cardinal Dulles.

It is your conscience, your decision; however, please do not impose it on other Catholics who prefer to follow the majority of the hierarchy who are leaning toward its abolishment. This is oppressive coercion you use in order to influence them to your way of thinking, rather than allow them the same freedom of conscience that you claim to hold in your own regard.

 

[pnewton]

"Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition. " Avery Cardinal Dulles

catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/social-justice/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment.html
In light of this, how can it be said that bishops should be silent on the issue? How can it be said that Catholics do not need to listen to the bishops on the subject, or reject their guidance?

For the time being my focus on this forum is going to turn from defending my position on capital punishment to defending my personal integrity against the charges that have been leveled against me. …Now, you have access to the article. You can compare what Dulles wrote with what I claimed he wrote. You therefore have everything available to you to substantiate your charge of deception on my part. So: substantiate it or retract it.

Ender

I did not charge you with deception. My post is still there for comparison.

I will add one more possibility I did not add originally. Cardinal Dulles could have used “teaching” in a non-traditional sense, one that does not address to doctrine. However, the document presented only use the word four times.

"Those who recognize the signs of the times will move beyond the outmoded doctrines that the State has a divinely delegated power to kill and that criminals forfeit their fundamental human rights. The* teaching* on capital punishment must today undergo a dramatic development corresponding to these new insights. "

" The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that “Catholic* teaching *has accepted the principle that the State has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime.”

"Finally, some hold that the death penalty is incompatible with the* teaching *of Jesus on forgiveness. "

The fourth usage is above.

The balance of our duty to be attentive to our pope and bishop is that actual application of doctrine is, in this case “prudential judgment”. This means that it is not a matter of heresy to disagree with a bishop. In fact, it is a more serious matter to think all capital punishment is murder, or that it is objectively immoral. That *would *be contrary to Catholic doctrine.

 

[pnewton]

Hey I just found something great in that Dulles article:

7.The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.

1. The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or *disrespect for the value of innocent human life. *

That last part is my reason for opposing the death penalty, as I do not believe seven to be achievable for all people. It is sort of funny that I arrived at my opinions from a Francis Schaeffer point of view and after going in a circle come to Cardinal Dulles.

 

[adrift]

This is so absurd that it requires no response whatsoever. Enough said.
Take it to our last three popes.

Pope Frances echoes the pleas of Benedict XVI and John Paul II to abolish capital punishment.
ncregister.com/daily-news/papal-message-reaffirms-call-to-abolish-death-penalty

I was answering an absurd statement so no wonder you cannot respond:shrug: