Voting for pro death penalty president?

[Randolph]

Who are “we”? Meaning people who agree with you?? Certainly not the perennial teaching of the Church. See Enders’s previous posts…

 

[Randolph]

You do know that Christ is God—a Son of God and the Second Person of the Trinity. He came to fulfill the Laws. His word is enteral—unlike random people who claim the dominion of the movements of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Randolph]

Have you read my posts? I am in support of development of doctrine

 

[Randolph]

Randolph:

You do know that Christ is God[?]

I’m not going to deign to respond to stupid questions.

You do know that Christ is God—a Son of God and the Second Person of the Trinity. He came to fulfill the Laws.

And yet many accused him of trying to abolish the Law. The Law that God had instructed his people to follow.

But as we both know, they were mistaken in that accusation.

Jesus is God, and he came to fulfill the laws—not abolish them.

 

[Metis1]

I don’t want to get off topic with this, and I don’t want to turn this into another Galileo thread. There were were indeed mis-steps from the Church hierarchy. But there was no reversal in doctrine this case.

Depending on how one defines “doctrine”, the simple fact is that Galileo was right and the Church leadership was wrong, and no theological song & dance will change that. Same was true of the Church’s handling of the ToE at first.

People make mistakes, and since the Church is made up of people, and since popes are also people, …

Moving on …

 

[Metis1]

As well as in Judaism since their view is that the “eye for an eye…” was a limitation, not a requirement. It was given when the Israelites were in the Sinai whereas there were no jails or prisons. The prophets, commenting later, strongly emphasized mercy and forgiveness, not our own feelings of revenge.

 

[Ender]

It’s an impossibility to declare what once was a doctrine to now, all of a sudden, it’s not, or what once was an intrinsic evil and now it’s not—-unless one makes the case that the God (and therefore the Catholic Church) has always been wrong, and He now uses the so-called “movements of the Holy Spirit” to correct his errors.

Yes. The church has already spoken about this.

"For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." (Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv - !st Vatican Council)

 

[Ender]

This point is crucial to understanding what the church actually teaches so I’m looking for a yes or no answer here. Does the church teach that capital punishment is intrinsically evil?

So I suppose that you would suggest that the Pope is promoting heresy.

Given that none of us believes the Pope is promulgating heresy, how do you explain that the position you have taken - and which you believe the Pope has promoted - is in fact heretical?

One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians. (St. Bellarmine)

 

[Ender]

I didn’t see that you had addressed anything specifically to me. Ask me whatever you will.

Depending on how one defines “doctrine”, the simple fact is that Galileo was right and the Church leadership was wrong, and no theological song & dance will change that.

The point here is not that “The Church” was wrong and Galileo right (and he made some significant errors himself), but that a particular pope mishandled a particular situation. The church has never claimed that popes are infallible so unless you can cite where the Fathers, Scripture, or earlier popes held forth that geocentrism was doctrine, the issues are in no way comparable.

As well as in Judaism since their view is that the “eye for an eye…” was a limitation, not a requirement. It was given when the Israelites were in the Sinai whereas there were no jails or prisons.

So you would accept that capital punishment is acceptable in cases where jails and prisons do not exist? That is, its use is unnecessary, but not immoral?

 

[Ender]

Regarding heresy, can something be heresy before and become not heresy after? Because this is what your position requires. This would mean the heretics got it right after all.

This is what the Church teaches:

And this is the problem in a nutshell: if you cannot or will not answer a straightforward yes or no question it suggests you either don’t understand the issue, or that you do understand it and recognize that either answer is self defeating.

Can you provide an example of a significant, and controversial, development in moral teaching that you assented to?

Humana Vitae (Which has nothing whatever to do with the issue in question.)

 

[Ender]

It is not a question of the words in the catechism are. What is important is how we understand them, which is what I’m asking you. Do you understand them to mean that capital punishment is now considered intrinsically evil?

As for this being a loaded question, in a way it is, but only because either answer is going to present serious difficulties for your position, but it is not loaded in the sense of “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

How other people react with regard to other questions is completely irrelevant to my arguments with regard to this one.

 

[Ender]

Please, just yes or no. It’s got to be either intrinsically evil or not intrinsically evil. One or the other. Abortion is intrinsically evil. Missing Sunday mass is not. Which is capital punishment?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Please, just yes or no. It’s got to be either intrinsically evil or not intrinsically evil. One or the other. Abortion is intrinsically evil. Missing Sunday mass is not. Which is capital punishment?

Many people including yourself don’t have or need a concept of intrinsic evil and can be happy to follow the guidance of the moral teacher of our world, the Church.

The Church like governments, regards the death penalty as a neutral act made either good or harmful by its application. It is good if it serves the common good and if it is harmful to the common good the Church cites Scripture commanding governments to forbear from it’s use. That is a serious and grave duty and explains why the Church has taken the step to declare it inadmissible.

But if one cannot grasp the concept of extrinsic evil one will never get the Churchs teaching.

 

[Ender]

Many people including yourself don’t have or need a concept of intrinsic evil and can be happy to follow the guidance of the moral teacher of our world, the Church.

For all we disagree about, which is nearly everything, at least you have answered this question. I’m just waiting for (name removed by moderator) to do the same.

 

[Ender]

I’ll just assume that you have no intention of actually saying yes or not so I’ll move on. If in fact you agree with Emarldlady then you agree that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil (that would be a “no” in answer to my question).

So let’s examine what that means. Most significantly it means that capital punishment cannot be completely inadmissible simply by definition. If something is not intrinsically evil then there are times and situations where its use is appropriate, so right there we have a limitation on what “inadmissible” means.

Now Emeraldlady continually points out that capital punishment is forbidden if it is harmful, an observation with which I have just as continually agreed, but while that restriction may be a doctrine, the judgment of whether it is or is not harmful is an opinion That the last three popes opposed its use, and believed it to be harmful is, again, a prudential judgment, and as such is not doctrine and with which one may legitimately disagree.

In conclusion, if capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, as you appear to believe, then it is not inadmissible, its use can be justified, and we are justified in forming our own opinion on whether it ought to be used. This is the position I have taken, so it looks like we are in agreement here.

 

[Emeraldlady]

But, also:

[/quote]



Yes that is a most important aspect to stress against the current claims that are mostly coming from a certain faction of US Catholics, that the death penalty cannot be immoral. Or that it constitutes a divine right in and of itself. The fact is that to kill a human being is such a travesty against human dignity that its natural to rejoice when humanity finds a way to achieve a good outcome without need for it. And that’s why the death penalty has gradually been abolished around the world. Humanity making ethical and moral choices that are natural to mankind.

 

[Ender]

Yes that is a most important aspect to stress against the current claims that are mostly coming from a certain faction of US Catholics, that the death penalty cannot be immoral.

The death penalty cannot be per se immoral; you yourself have said it is not intrinsically evil. What can be immoral is a particular instance of its use, but this is true of almost everything. Alms giving can be done in an immoral way.

Or that it constitutes a divine right in and of itself.

The authority and power to rule in fact comes from God. This includes the right and duty to punish criminals, and the right to punish extends to capital punishment as well, so yes, understood this way it is a divine right. This does not mean this right cannot be abused, or that governments are justified in applying it whenever they want. It’s use may be just or unjust depending on the situation.

The fact is that to kill a human being is such a travesty against human dignity…

How do you justify holding that an execution is “a travesty against human dignity” with your acknowledgement that it is not intrinsically evil? It would seem that capital punishment must either be intrinsically evil or we may (on occasion) be justified in committing a travesty against human dignity.

What we have with capital punishment, even as it is recognized not to be evil in all circumstances, the belief that we should act as if it was.

 

[Metis1]

All peoples have the right to protect themselves, imo, therefore in societies with no jails or prisons there logically may be a choice, reluctant as it may be, to use capital punishment if banishment wouldn’t eliminate the threat. In OT times, there were “sanctuary cities” where a criminal could run to but could never leave.

IOW, sometimes there may have to be a trade-off because there’s more than just one thing at stake (“Catch 22”), and in situations like this, the Church generally has told us to go in the direction of the “lesser evil”.

 

[Ender]

All peoples have the right to protect themselves, imo, therefore in societies with no jails or prisons there logically may be a choice, reluctant as it may be, to use capital punishment if banishment wouldn’t eliminate the threat.

Killing in self defense is justified under the principle of double effect, but that principle has very specific criteria that must be met for the action to be justified, and this one is paramount:

…the principle of double effect does not apply if the evil effect is intended ( Catechism of the Catholic Church , 2263). In the case of capital punishment, the intended object of the act is precisely the death of the offender. (Cardinal Dulles)

 

[Metis1]

I have never stated nor implied that the death penalty is intrinsically evil but, instead, that it is unnecessary in a country with prisons and jails, therefore being overly brutal. And, at this point at least, the Church and the Catechism believe and teach the same way and no song & dance will change that-- at least at this time.