Uh, 1900 years of Christian history disagrees. The Church has tolerated capital punishment in the past because certain repeat-offenders couldn’t be securely neutralized from being a threat to society by means of incarceration. Now that our surveillance and security technology has advanced, it is no longer needed to neutralize a threatening offender by means of capital punishment. There are other, more human means to protect society from their influence now. So no, pro-capital punishment is not automatically anti-life. In some cases it has even been pro-life in the same way defensive war is.
The church has never interpreted that commandment to ban all killing; even in the very beginning she never took that position. She has in fact been very clear that there are three situations that may justify killing. This is just one of a half dozen catechisms that make the point.
This is not how the church justified capital punishment, and in fact the need for protection doesn’t justify its use. The church acknowledged a State’s right to use it because it is a just punishment (for some crimes, e.g. murder). The ability to protect ourselves from repeat offenders may have changed, but the justness of the punishment has not changed, indeed it cannot.
Can you cite anything in the Catechism that supports this? Or is it just a matter of cherry-picking from Church documents, especially very old ones?
You have the unpleasant habit of labeling citations as cherry picking. Again, these are easy charges to make; let’s see you substantiate it. And when did it become inappropriate to cite church Fathers or early councils? Why does the issue of “old” versus “new” matter? Does truth become error as it ages? Are earlier popes less authentic than newer ones?
There are two answers.
Yes, but this is your interpretation of what those Scripture passages mean. What I am citing is what the church has said.
And if you were to provide any citation at all it couldn’t be older than perhaps 25 years, and even then it has to come with your personal interpretation of what it means. What is it with you people and your objections to citing older texts? The Gospels are old. St. Paul is old. If you can cite them what is the objection to citing those who came after them? Either age is a criterion or it isn’t, but I don’t really care: you tell me how old truth has to be before it’s no longer true and I will adjust my citations accordingly. What will you allow me? 1000 years? 500? 100?
So, it’s a cheap trick to cite 2000 years of church doctrine to support my position? Really? It is not my position that is damaging; you are the one who asserted (Post 320): “Pro-capital-punishment is inherently pro-death (and, thus, anti-life).” which condemns the church for the first 2018 years of her existence.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m doing, because my position doesn’t require that I ignore everything the church said about this for her entire existence until (at best) two years ago.
This assumes the point under discussion, which is that your interpretation of the change in the catechism is actually correct. Clearly I’m not willing to grant that.
It’s not clear what you’re objecting to here: my claim as to what the church taught for 2000 years, what she taught from 1997 until 2018, or what she teaches now. What totality do you refer to?
Do you dismiss Augustine, Aquinas, all the Doctors and Fathers, and all the previous councils, catechisms, and popes as “obscure”? Besides, a teaching does not gain authority from being included in the catechism; its authority derives from its original source, regarding which the 2018 change seems to be a bit light in substance.
Why should we be limited to the catechism? Protection is clearly not the primary objective of punishment so it didn’t seem necessary to enlarge on that point. Here is the USCCB from 1980:
I don’t have to choose between catechisms; they can all co-exist under my position. It is only your position that requires one to choose between them, that has them saying different things.
Really, you believe it is only in old documents that we find support for the idea that a punishment must be just? Or that the severity of the punishment must match the severity of the crime?
What is mandated is a just punishment, one that is as severe as the crime committed. Given that capital punishment is such a punishment (or will you claim that the church supported - and itself imposed - an unjust punishment for centuries?), what is the argument that it isn’t required? It is a just punishment and a just punishment is in fact required.
You’re not asking me to defer to them; you are insisting that I defer to your interpretation of what they are saying.
I don’t offer my interpretation of Scripture. I cite the church’s interpretations, citations you reject because they are “old”.
This is not exactly the development of Christian doctrine, but even this interpretation is invalid. The individual is expected to forgive, and is forbidden to seek revenge. The State, however, is not just allowed to punish but is required to do so. The rights and duties of the State are very different from those of the individual.
Of course he does; it is you who has gone astray.
I realize this is another old citation, but it ought to carry weight nonetheless.
I want to follow up a bit more on this point. I think it is an important test of our position that it be consistent with church tradition, and that we in fact don’t have to pick and choose which authorities to accept and which to reject, that we come up with some way to accommodate all that has been said into a consistent theory. To me it is a non-starter if our position demands that all of church history be exorcised from consideration. I do not accept that what was true yesterday can be false today, and I think it is pernicious to believe the church’s doctrines are so malleable.
I was not challenging the possibility that capital punishment is a potentially just and permitted punishement. Nor was I challenging the role of justice vs. protection in deciding punishment. I was only challenging that capital punishment is ever mandated.
versus
I have to wonder how the death penalty can ever be both inadmissible and obligatory. Which of these two statements do you think I am likely mis-interpreting, given that one of them is itself an interpretation? I understand the bit about how there is a difference between universal morals and prudential judgement based on temporal facts and situations. But even with that understanding, there would still be a contradiction, for if there was a specific crime for which the death penalty was mandatory (because of justice, not protection), then it would remain mandatory even under the conditions described in CCC 2267, for ability to confine a prisoner does not alter justice. Then there is the issue of the Catechism not being officially part of the deposit of faith. Even still, it is written by men who understand the deposit of faith far better than I do. Therefore it would be an extraordinary thing if all these shepherds of the Church were simultaneously deceived about a fact of faith that anyone with an Internet connection could easily verify. Therefore it would take an extraordinary amount of evidence to convince me that these men were wrong and that I was right in my interpretation of some writing of Aquinas, etc. It would be about as hard to convince me of that as it would be to convince me that the whole Catholic Church is a fraud.
This revision of your statement I could accept without objection because it is contingent on a condition that I can well believe will never be satisfied.
It was a poor choice of words on my part; I did not mean “oblige” in the sense of mandate, but more in the sense of accommodate. That said, let’s look at whether it is mandated.
I agree that such explicit writings are hard to come by, but I think there are several that suggest this.
You yourself have made that argument when you admitted (a long time ago) that not every murderer deserves to die for his crime. If there are extenuating circumstances that can only be judged on a case-by-case basis, then there can never be an absolute Church law that mandates the death penalty without taking those considerations into account.
You talked about two contrasting church teachings, but then compared a statement from the church with…one from me. That’s a bit of a bait and switch. Try reconciling these instead:
And then bear in mind there are literally a half dozen catechisms, and the statements of probably twice that number of Doctors and Fathers (not to mention the other popes) who all contradict the new catechism (as you understand it). That is the totality of church teaching. If you were serious about choosing to believe you have erred above believing the church made a mistake, then it would seem your task is either to reconcile the irreconcilable or to consider an alternative explanation for what the current catechism actually means.
I don’t know how to reconcile these statements. Do you? Can you do so without assuming that the majority of our bishops are teaching in error?LeafByNiggle:
You talked about two contrasting church teachings, but then compared a statement from the church with…one from me. That’s a bit of a bait and switch. Try reconciling these instead: