My (and your) interpretations are irrelevant. It is the church who took it literally, that is, took it to mean exactly what it says.
In Deuteronomy, Moses is speaking to the Israelites, laying down the Mosaic Law. In Genesis, God himself is speaking to Noah, establishing his covenant. We are not bound by Mosaic Law but God’s covenants are still in effect.
You recognized that Gn 9:6 calls for capital punishment in your first statement about taking the passage literally and now you claim it means something else? The statement is clear and the meaning is obvious
The lack of a footnote identifying passages as prudential doesn’t make them any less so. As has been pointed out before, the third sentence about the capabilities of modern penal systems is obviously a judgment; it is not doctrine.
According to nearly 2000 years of Catholic teaching this is exactly how capital punishment was justified. Cardinal Dulles was citing historical fact; that is what the church had always taught.
Whether the OT understanding of life in general is incomplete is irrelevant to how the church understood Gn 9:6. Dismissing that passage on the grounds that it is part of the OT dismisses not only the OT but the Traditional teaching of the church up to 1995.
Evangelium Vitae and 2267 say the same thing. Interestingly, each of them has only one endnote identifying the source of this new position on capital punishment. Each points to the other. EV 56 cites 2267 and 2267 cites EV 56. Unsurprisingly there is not a single statement in all of church history that provides a basis for what they present.
Capital punishment cannot be used unless the criminal deserves it, otherwise it would be unjust, but if you admit that he deserves the penalty then that is to admit the claims of retributive justice.
Ender
Dear Ender,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said - absolutely splendid stuff.
It admits of no serious doubt, dear friend, that there has been a radical shift in our Church’s understanding of capital punishment in recent times. As Mr. Keating (founder of Catholic Answers) has observed:
"The Catechism has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the purposes of punishment.
Beyond that it has included a prudential judgment (the only one in the Catechism on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience".
(Karl Keating’s E Letter, 2nd March 2004, added emphasis mine).
Mr Keating’s remarks were based upon an article written by the canon lawyer, R.M. Dunnigan. This is what Mr. Dunnigan said in that article:
“Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has the right to impose the death penalty, the Catechism declares that the actual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically non-existent”. Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgements that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching”
No doubt people will say by way of reply that standing Church teaching is not a mess for them and that they do not see any “dangerous ambiguity”. However, the fact that a canon lawyer and a highly respected Catholic apologist have raised issues with Catechism teaching on capital punishment, perhaps may just indicate that the current teaching is a little muddy and that some uncertainty as to its precise meaning may exist. At any rate, many are of the opinion that this teaching should be revisited and that Holy Mother Church should dispel any uncertainty and clarify definitively its position on this most weighty matter.
As you correctly state, dear friend, Catholic teaching has always justified the death penalty as the just retribution for the heinous crime of murder. Unfortunately, owing to the maudlin ideology of secular humanism, contemporary Western society has become deeply suspicious of the whole concept of retribution for wrongdoing. Our judicial and penal systems tend to want to deal with criminals purely in terms of deterring and reforming them, not in terms of punishing. Thus we have almost completely lost sight of just retribution as a concept and have come to view it as something unworthy and wrapped up with vengeance. This is, of course, arrant nonsense but its sits very comfortably with the ‘touchy-feely’ age in which our lot is cast. However, Genesis 9: 6 - “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man” - unmistakeably speaks the language of retribution and was uttered by God Himself. Thus if we are unhappy with the death penalty as a just retribution for murder, then our argument is with God who mandated the punishment in the first place. Sacred Scripture is quite unequivocal that capital punishment is established as the retribution to be meted out to the person who wantonly and wilfully takes the life of his fellow. As long as man retains the image of God capital punishment will always have permanent relevance and validity. Moreover, no crime is as extreme and, as it concerns the person who is the victim, none as irremediable, as the crime of taking life itself. No, the death penalty will not bring the victim back from the grave, but it will ensure that the punishment is commensurate with the crime and that justice is truly done and seen to be done, allowing the victims relatives/friends to have closure.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Where does the CCC lists those who are qualified for state execution?