Voting for pro death penalty president?

[Ender]

The church has always included capital punishment along with self defense and war as instances of justified killing. This is just one of at least a half dozen catechisms saying the same thing.

3 Q. Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X, 1905)

The death penalty is not justice.

If the death penalty was not justice, that is if it was not in fact just, it could never have been allowed. It is justice alone that requires and permits it. How could the church ever have not only allowed it but defended it if it was unjust?

The catechism states that it is the duty of the State to apply a punishment that is commensurate with the severity of the crime. Again, given that God himself saw fit to require that punishment for the sin of murder, either the punishment is just or God is unjust.

your interpretation of Jesus’ words are yours alone.

I interpreted it similarly, and I know others who have as well.

What is notable, however, is that you will not be able to cite any significant person in all of church history who agrees with you. That really ought to be something for you to consider.

 

[Ender]

No, but this makes my point. Euthanasia has a specific meaning that is not conveyed by “killing”. The same is true of “execution”…which is why I used it.

Slavery was allowed…Some could compare this development to that.

The justness of a punishment cannot evolve or develop. It is either just or unjust, appropriate to the crime or not. That God decreed it seems enough to determine that it was in fact just.

So there were those, then, even in the Early Church, who saw the death penalty for what it is.

Well, Tertullian believed it was wrong, but given that he was excommunicated his judgment was a bit suspect. Lactanctius was the only other Father who expressed some doubt, so no, there really were no “those” who saw the death penalty “for what it is”.

… .the belief that capital punishment is no good has been present in the minds of at least a portion of the faithful since the beginning, it seems.

Against every other Father, all the Doctors, every pope, Magisterium, and council for 2000 years you choose…those two? And God? Did he not see it for what it is either? If it is such an awful thing how could he have commanded it?

given that God himself saw fit to require that punishment for the sin of murder, either the punishment is just or God is unjust.

False dichotomy.

Make a case for how I got this wrong. It is easy to assert something, now demonstrate the error of my statement.

 

[Ender]

I didn’t suggest doctrine couldn’t develop, so the question of slavery couldn’t be more irrelevant. My comment was about punishment and whether the nature of a punishment could change. Whether a particular punishment ought to be applied can change depending on circumstances, but that’s not the issue either.

For a punishment to be just it must first be of commensurate severity with the crime, so my claim was that if capital punishment objectively ever met that criterion, it must always meet it because neither the severity of the crime nor of the punishment can change.

The point is, it has pretty clearly been a position that at least some of the faithful have held since pretty much the beginning. That position is not heresy, though some who were very overzealous about the position might have been drifting into that.

By “some of the faithful” you mean at most two Fathers, one of whom was excommunicated. What is more significant is that what you exclude is the church, who never adopted that position. As to whether it was a heresy: yes, it was. I pointed this out before.

I find it very disturbing that you keep using the fact that God took back the life that he gave to someone as being a justification for a mortal, fallible man snatching away from someone their God-given life.

The individual has no right to claim the life of another person, but the State absolutely does have that right because that has been granted to it by God, at least according to the church.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

Princes and Governors that have public authority, put malefactors to death, not as masters of men’s lives, but as ministers of God, as St. Paul saith. (St Bellarmine)

We live in an age now where such wrongful practices can not even be excused by a lack of ability to protect the greater society from a dangerous threat. So, yes, it is not just.

There are two conditions that must be satisfied for a punishment to be just: it’s severity must be comparable to the severity of the crime, and its application in a particular instance must not cause even greater problems. Regarding severity, I touched on that above: if capital punishment ever satisfied that criterion it satisfies it today. As for whether its use causes problems, that is a practical judgment, not a moral one, and about which people may validly disagree.

 

[Ender]

You have done no such thing.
[/quote]
From post #225:

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)

It is no longer the opinion of the Church that the death penalty is permissible…

That’s your opinion of church doctrine; it is clearly not mine. The difference here is that I have supported my position with argument and citations. You have simply asserted that you are right.

Just know that you are being disingenuous.

That you are unable to refute any of my arguments doesn’t make me disingenuous. What it suggests is that your position is not supportable.

 

[Metis1]

I think we need to realize what the real driving force is with those who support the death penalty, don’t accept human causation with climate change, etc., and it has nothing to do with religion or science and everything to do with secular right-wing politics. The same people who make such assertions here are also the same people who post right-wing political views on the more political threads.

Thus, the real driving force certainly is not the Pope, the Church, or what the consensus of scientists have concluded, but is instead what they’ve picked up from right-wing sources. I’ve seen this repeated many times over in other venues, and I certainly wasn’t born yesterday.

At least Sean Hannity came to grips with this and left the Catholic Church in order to be an Evangelical because he considers our Church to be too much to the “left”. Bad choice, imo, but it was his to make as the Church doesn’t pay his paycheck-- Fox does.

 

[Ender]

I think we need to realize what the real driving force is with those who support the death penalty, don’t accept human causation with climate change, etc., and it has nothing to do with religion or science and everything to do with secular right-wing politics. The same people who make such assertions here are also the same people who post right-wing political views on the more political threads.

So my citations of popes, Fathers and Doctors of the church, and a half dozen catechisms spanning two millennia is evidence of…right wing political thinking? I think the difficulty you have in defending your position is that you’ve never had it seriously challenged before, and you’ve really never had to support your reasons for holding it.

I understand you strongly oppose capital punishment along with a lot of other people, and it is valid to do so, but only for appropriate reasons, and those reasons do not include “because it is immoral”. Such a position condemns the church herself for ever acknowledging it as legitimate, along with every serious theologian she has ever produced. It is assuredly not a right wing political view that causes me to defend the church against such charges.

 

[Metis1]

Believe in what you WANT to believe, I guess, but I’ll take Jesus’, the Pope’s and the Catechism’s words on this. Thus, I don’t need to fabricate excuses and use statements from the past that no longer apply to today’s situations while parroting right-wing politicians and their media. I don’t need to pick & choose information and data on various topics in order to straddle the fence by trying to have it both ways. Finally, I’ve been challenged by those who have presented far more logic and whom are not so much into themselves.

 

[Anesis]

Every president we’ve had has been pro-death penalty.

I guess I will vote for the one who doesn’t want to kill people who are 100% innocent of any crime.

 

[Ender]

Believe in what you WANT to believe, I guess, but I’ll take Jesus’, the Pope’s and the Catechism’s words on this.

Which pope are you referring to: the current one or the 265 who preceded him? and which catechism: the one updated in 2018, or all of the ones preceding it? As for what Jesus believed, are you really saying what he taught contradicted what God taught? You believe that to be possible?

I don’t need to fabricate excuses and use statements from the past that no longer apply to today’s situations…

Presenting an argument is not quite the same as fabricating excuses, and it would be helpful if you recognized the implications of your own comments. If past statements refer to questions of morality then they are as relevant today as they were then given that morality does not change. If today’s statements refer only to current conditions then that defines them as judgments, not moral doctrines, and we have no obligation to agree with them.

I don’t need to pick & choose information…

This, however, is exactly what you’ve done by dismissing everything written prior to 2018, and by insisting that your personal interpretations of scripture are valid even against contrasting interpretations given by the church.

 

[Metis1]

It seems that you believe that Pope Francis isn’t aware of previous bishop’s decisions, including the other Bishops of Rome, right? It seems that you believe that the other bishops that helped the Pope to change that part of the Catechism that deals with capital punishment weren’t aware of previous statements and positions of previous bishops, right? It seems that you believe that those of us who believe that capital punishment should not be used in today’s societies must not understand some sort of “complexity” when Jesus said “Let he whom without sin cast the first stone”, right? And, of course, you believe that I have really not studied this in any detail, which is why you believe your knowledge on this is so much superior to mine, right?

You really don’t know me, nor do you know my background, and I prefer to keep it that way.

fini

 

[Ender]

It seems that you believe that Pope Francis isn’t aware of previous bishop’s decisions, including the other Bishops of Rome, right?

What I believe is only what I state, neither more nor less. Since I haven’t said much about the pope you shouldn’t assume much regarding how I view him.

It seems that you believe that the other bishops that helped the Pope to change that part of the Catechism that deals with capital punishment weren’t aware of previous statements and positions of previous bishops, right?

Actually, it is less about what was said, which is quite ambiguous, than about how you interpret it. We understand that section very differently.

It seems that you believe that those of us who believe that capital punishment should not be used in today’s societies…

I just wish you would acknowledge the implications of your own words. That something “should not be used today” is the virtual definition of a judgment, an opinion. Do you disagree?

Jesus said “Let he whom without sin cast the first stone”, right?

You keep repeating this but you have yet to provide any citation to support your personal interpretation of what it means. Why should we accept your understanding when there is nothing to indicate it is accepted by the church?

you believe that I have really not studied this in any detail…

I have no way of knowing what you have or have not studied. I only know that you have not supported your argument with anything other than opinion, against which I can cite church writers going back to the apostles.

 

[Ender]

He is a Doctor of the Church, and dismissing him because he is not infallible is not much of an argument given that no one else is infallible either.

You have “supported” your position with a level of legalism that the Evil One would applaud.

Wow.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”

I’ll ask again: does this mean capital punishment is now held to be intrinsically evil?

There is really no argument that God not only permitted but commanded that capital punishment be used.

But if someone willfully attacks and kills another by treachery, you shall take the killer from my altar for execution. (Ex 21:14)

You argue that Christ opposed capital punishment, which is the opposite of what God taught. How can the reversal of a teaching be considered clarification?

That’s not ambiguous. That’s quite explicit.

The US bishops declared it to be ambiguous, and its ambiguity lies precisely in suggesting that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, but not declaring it to be so.

 

[Metis1]

Amen to that as I fully agree, and may you and all reading this have a Most Blessed Lord’s Day.

 

[MamaJewel]

wouldn’t that type of update contradict previous catholic teaching…

especially where the inquisition was concerned?

And don’t we accept the death penalty when we accept the crucifixion of Christ as a viable solution to save our souls?

in other words, can someone explain to me how this all works.

(PS I am against the death penalty, btw. So it’s not like I’m rejecting church teaching.)

 

[C.Ray]

And certainly no true Scotsman.

 

[Ender]

wouldn’t that type of update contradict previous catholic teaching…

This is a hugely significant question that is not at all addressed by pointing to “changes” in teachings regarding other issues such as slavery and usury. There is a reason Archbishop Chaput said:

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity.

As lawyers would say: this assumes facts not in evidence. You assume as true what this debate is all about: is capital punishment wrong? As I pointed out before, if you declare support for capital punishment keeps one from being fully pro-life, then by your definition the church was not fully pro-life until 2018. Again, you need to deal with the implications of your position.

 

[Matteo93]

I’m Italian and this problem doesn’t exist here in Italy. But, if I were American and i had to vote in USA, i’ld be in troubles. I think the best is to vote for a person who is working to eliminate the death penalty. If there weren’t such a person, maybe i wouldn’t vote at all.

 

[Ender]

Development may expand a doctrine, but can never reverse it.

“A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started” (Cardinal Newman)

“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” (Cardinal Dulles)

What you propose is not development, but repudiation.

This developed over time…

The belief that capital punishment is morally wrong is your interpretation based on an update that appeared in the catechism in 2018. There is no development that proceeds from good to bad, and certainly none in this case. On May 10, 2018 capital punishment was not considered immoral. On May 11 it was (your interpretation). That is not development, and certainly not one that proceeded over time.

…and was the logical next step in our fine-tuning of our approach on this until it was properly in line with what God wills of the Church, and (obviously) the truth.

How do we rationalize the belief that God forbids it now with the fact that he commanded it before? How is this even conceivable?

 

[Matteo93]

I see. Probably i am wrong, but i thought a great part of the Americans were Christians (Catholic or not) and so contrary to death penalty. So it is weird that the most of the politicias are contrary to eliminate it!

 

[Matteo93]

It’s interesting to note how in Italy and in Europe it is much more common to meet pro-abortion or pro-euthanasia people and it is very difficult to meet pro-death penalty people. I am talking about Catholic and not. And it is also more surprising to see all this if you think how God was clear when did to write “Don’t kill”. Point. (I wrote translating by Italian, i don’t know how the Commandment is precisely)