E
Ender
Guest
I’ve only ignored it the last several times, because you keep repeating it even though I keep agreeing with it . I can’t help that you won’t take “I agree” for an answer.
Apparently so.
Last edited:
- Status
Emeraldlady
New member
So are you feigning the inability to understand what ‘inadmissible’ means? Why?Emeraldlady:
I’ve only ignored it the last several times, because you keep repeating it even though I keep agreeing with it . I can’t help that you won’t take “I agree” for an answer.
Last edited:
M
Metis1
Guest
Some seem to rather conveniently forget being against capital punishment in societies with prisons and jails is now in the Catechism, thus it is the official position of the Church.
IOW, one simply cannot have it both ways.
IOW, one simply cannot have it both ways.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
No one disputes that the church is opposed to the use of capital punishment. That said, the key question is whether the objections to its use are moral or prudential. It seems clear to me that they are prudential if for no other reason than if a moral objection was raised now it would condemn 2000 years of church teaching as immoral.
M
Metis1
Guest
Church teachings are not static, nor have they ever been static.
Emeraldlady
New member
2 things… again. Prudence is a moral virtue to discern good from evil.Metis1:
No one disputes that the church is opposed to the use of capital punishment. That said, the key question is whether the objections to its use are moral or prudential. It seems clear to me that they are prudential if for no other reason than if a moral objection was raised now it would condemn 2000 years of church teaching as immoral.
The 2000 year old teaching of the Church is that the death penalty is admitted to serve the common good and we are commanded no less by God to forbear from it’s use if it is harmful to society.
T
TK421
Guest
Intrinsically evil: no
Immoral: yes. Capital punishment is immoral and it is immoral to support it.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Until God tells us that capital punishment actually is harmful to the common good we will just have to make up our own minds about its impact. That’s pretty much the definition of a prudential judgment.
Those two statements cannot both be true. If something is not intrinsically evil then by the definition of the term there must be cases where it is justified, but if it can be justified then it cannot be immoral. Something cannot be both always immoral and not always immoral. If it is the former then your first statement is incorrect. If it is the latter then your second assertion is wrong.
T
TK421
Guest
???
The Catechism contains the official teachings of the Church, and it is opposed to capital punishment, so supporting capital punishment is immoral because that would be disobedience.
Adultery or abortion or blasphemy, etc., are intrinsically evil because they’re evil in all times and all circumstances: it’s just a matter of culpability.
The Catechism contains the official teachings of the Church, and it is opposed to capital punishment, so supporting capital punishment is immoral because that would be disobedience.
Adultery or abortion or blasphemy, etc., are intrinsically evil because they’re evil in all times and all circumstances: it’s just a matter of culpability.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
If the catechism contains a prudential judgment then disagreement with it may be legitimate.
“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their 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. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
Last edited:
C
ConcernedConvert
Guest
My excuse not to is rooted strongly in historical teachings and practices of the church. The church had its own executioners and Has consistently taught one way regarding the death penalty.
Emeraldlady
New member
We use the gift of prudence to discern good from evil and God commanded us to forbear from using the death penalty if we discern it to be harming society. Commanded. It’s not that hard to understand.Emeraldlady:
Until God tells us that capital punishment actually is harmful to the common good we will just have to make up our own minds about its impact. That’s pretty much the definition of a prudential judgment.
Aquinas gave us context by comparing the death penalty to amputating a diseased limb in order to stop harm to the whole body. In that time amputation was done for good. Today we are capable of treating a diseased limb without amputation and preserving the wholeness of the body. Today, amputation when there is a non surgical alternative would be evil because it is cruel and unnecessary.
If there was a case where medicine was not available, say an isolated community with no access to modern treatments, a doctor would be prudent to amputate a diseased limb in order to preserve the rest of the body.
Amputation can be good or it can be evil depending on what is best to preserve the life of the whole body. Amputation like the death penalty, is not intrinsically evil or intrinsically just. How and why it is applied makes it evil or just.
T
TK421
Guest
Thank you for that post. That’s a very good analogy but it came from St Aquinas so I shouldn’t be surprised.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
Yes, we are commanded to do what we think is right. We are not commanded to do what someone else thinks is right.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Yep . By Default - As Pro-Life implies AntiAbortion
- Catholicism and ALL Catholics Obedient to Catholic Teachings - are: “Pro-Life”
from Voting for all Candidates connected w/the Party of Death
Emeraldlady
New member
The command is directed to nations or governing authority responsible for the common good, because it’s clearly not allowed that individuals alone have the right to use the death penalty. Individuals are free to disagree with their government. What a person isn’t free to do is claim that Catholic doctrine is a reason not to abolish the death penalty because that is completely untrue.Emeraldlady:
Yes, we are commanded to do what we think is right. We are not commanded to do what someone else thinks is right.
E
Ender
Guest
There may always be practical reasons that persuade states to abolish capital punishment. There are, however, no moral objections, and that is Catholic doctrine.
Emeraldlady
New member
Again, not true. When God commands forbearing from using the death penalty, that is a moral obligation. What else could a command imply?Emeraldlady:
There may always be practical reasons that persuade states to abolish capital punishment. There are, however, no moral objections, and that is Catholic doctrine.
E
Ender
Guest
He did not command us not to use capital punishment. If he had the Church would have taught evil as good for 2000 years. We are commanded to use prudence, and do what we think is best in each particular situation. We are not told what is best; that we have to figure out on our own. This is a judgment call; we are not told how to apply doctrines in specific cases. That’s the definition of prudential: “It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances.” (Dulles)
Your assertion that “God commands forbearing from using the death penalty” is simply false. He has commanded no such thing.
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
God commands us not to use capital punishment when it is harmful to the common good. Aquinas in the 13th century responds to the premise that capital punishment is basically ‘intrinsically evil’.Emeraldlady:
He did not command us not to use capital punishment. If he had the Church would have taught evil as good for 2000 years.
“Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.” Summa Theologica
2000 year old Church history is clearly that CP is admitted when it serves society but we are commanded to forbear from its use when it is harmful to society. That is the 2000 year old truth.
There’s a lot of waffling here that seems designed to undermine the authority of the collective conscience to determine the common good. Why are you fighting the Church on this.
Pope St John Paul II “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
It’s not my assertion. It’s Aquinas the Good Doctors teaching.
- Status