We’ve been bishops in 3 death penalty states. It’s time to stop federal executions for good

[Ender]

CP is legitimate under certain cirucumstances . That means that circumstances dictate if it is legitimate or not.

It is one’s judgment about the circumstances that justifies the decision to apply it.

…therefore according to the teaching of the Church, it should be forbidden as commanded by God under those circumstances.

There is no “teaching of the church” about particular circumstances. Those are judgments, not doctrines.

Actually, that’s not true at all.

Really? That Doctor of the Church was wrong? How about this pope: in your opinion is he wrong as well because his understanding differs from your interpretation of the new version of 2267?

…one should not forget that no human sentence finally and definitively settles the fate of a man, but only the judgment of God, both for single acts and for those of a lifetime. (Pius XII)

What is the argument that what was explicitly taught by the church for centuries should be ignored because of what you think was said last year? Are you really so blase about church doctrine that you have no difficulty in believing today the opposite of what was taught yesterday?

 

[EndTimes]

How about this pope: in your opinion is he wrong as well because his understanding differs from your interpretation of the new version of 2267?

Wrong. It’s not my interpretation of CCC 2267 (1997) - It’s a direct quote…

And you’ve no evidence that Francis disagrees with the reasoning of that time
which places Salvation of Soul OVER the then “practically non-existent” reason for ending the DP,
as if said understanding no longer exists…

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent’.”

FACT IS… If the pope disagrees with what I’ve Bolded
I’d lean to think that he opposes God’s Holy Spirit.

Anything else?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

CP is legitimate under certain cirucumstances . That means that circumstances dictate if it is legitimate or not.

It is one’s judgment about the circumstances that justifies the decision to apply it.

It’s the role of the state responsible for the common good to decide the circumstances that render CP unacceptable. That’s what’s happened around the world over the last century. Nations have decided that it does more harm than good and detrimental to the common good.

…therefore according to the teaching of the Church, it should be forbidden as commanded by God under those circumstances.

The Church teaches that it is within the authority of the state to make the laws and set the appropriate sentences according to the common good.

 

[Ender]

Wrong. It’s not my interpretation of CCC 2267 (1997) - It’s a direct quote…

And you’ve no evidence that Francis disagrees with the reasoning of that time

What you state that Francis believes is directly contrary to what Pius XII explicitly stated, and is further contradicted by what the catechism says, so either your understanding of that passage is in error or Francis has contradicted centuries of church doctrine and the current catechism.

2266 contains this:

…punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender. (67)
(67) Lk 23: 40-43

Lk 23 is a reference to the salvation of the good thief, so the catechism refers to a case of capital punishment as an example of a penalty that "contributes to the correction of the offender". It is not rational to accept an understanding of 2267 that directly contradicts what was just explained in 2266.

 

[EndTimes]

What you state that Francis believes is directly

I’ve not stating anything connected with what Francis believes.

He’s made an extremely almost infinitesimal change to Church Teachings…

The soul of any re: Salvation - supersedes any demand that LIFE for LIFE exists any more.

That’s per JESUS

 

[Rau]

There is no “teaching of the church” about particular circumstances. Those are judgments, not doctrines.

The church teaches principals of morality too. It teaches that acts doing more harm than good are immoral. You can debate the premise as it applies to CP these days, but you can’t debate the conclusion. I think you should focus on expressing & justifying your belief (as I understand it) that CP does more good than harm even in these days.

 

[Emeraldlady]

What you state that Francis believes is directly contrary to what Pius XII explicitly stated, and is further contradicted by what the catechism says, so either your understanding of that passage is in error or Francis has contradicted centuries of church doctrine and the current catechism.

Are you saying that the Popes’ statements on the DP in the past were considered declared doctrine? If the DP is conditionally legitimate, then doesn’t that make the statements in the past by Popes addressing the DP in their day according to the circumstances, of the same nature as the Popes now addressing the DP today in todays circumstances? You are being inconsistent and consequently coming to wrong conclusions.

 

[Ender]

The soul of any re: Salvation - supersedes any demand that LIFE for LIFE exists any more.

Has Francis changed the primary objective of punishment? No, 2266 is the same now as it has been since the catechism was written: the primary objective is not rehabilitation, it is retributive justice. Beyond that, as the catechism shows, capital punishment is not contrary to salvation.

It teaches that acts doing more harm than good are immoral. You can debate the premise as it applies to CP these days, but you can’t debate the conclusion.

Nor have I ever said otherwise. That has never been questioned.

I think you should focus on expressing & justifying your belief (as I understand it) that CP does more good than harm even in these days.

I have actually very seldom asserted that. Again, most of my comments are directed at what I consider to be bad arguments against the morality of capital punishment. I do think a good argument can be made, better in fact than the contrary argument - which amounts to little more than assertions of “it’s bad” - but those are prudential objections, and I have focused on the moral ones.

Are you saying that the Popes’ statements on the DP in the past were considered declared doctrine?

Of course. Did you think there were no doctrines at all?

If the DP is conditionally legitimate, then doesn’t that make the statements in the past by Popes addressing the DP in their day according to the circumstances, of the same nature as the Popes now addressing the DP today in todays circumstances?

Their comments were not about using capital punishment “in their day”; they were about capital punishment in general. That is, they were about the doctrines themselves, and not simply their application in special circumstances. The doctrines have not changed, the new comments are "not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium." (CDF Letter)

 

[Rau]

That is, they were about the doctrines themselves, and not simply their application in special circumstances.

The rubber does not hit the road - in the practical sense - till circumstances are considered. We don’t know the act to be good or bad if we don’t consider the circumstances. Without that full consideration, the treatment of the subject has an academic flavor.

 

[EndTimes]

Has Francis changed the primary objective of punishment? No, 2266 is the same now as it has been since the catechism was written: the primary objective is not rehabilitation, it is retributive justice. Beyond that, as the catechism shows, capital punishment is not contrary to salvation.

In 2019 - c.22 Americans were executed.

The world does not listen to the pope

Since we’re speaking of this overall topic
On a related note of killing/murder -
Since its inception -
more than 1.5 Billion babes in the womb have been Murdered.

Be nice if more Catholic HireUps … brought huge attention to Catholic Teachings on ABORTION,
including as applied to Voting / Pro-Abortion Candidates / Communion

 

[Emeraldlady]

Ender:

That is, they were about the doctrines themselves, and not simply their application in special circumstances.

The rubber does not hit the road - in the practical sense - till circumstances are considered. We don’t know the act to be good or bad if we don’t consider the circumstances. Without that full consideration, the treatment of the subject has an academic flavor.

Exactly. Doctrine both allows and forbids use of the death penalty depending on what circumstances apply. The various Popes have addressed it according to that bar in their own era’s.

 

[Ender]

The rubber does not hit the road - in the practical sense - till circumstances are considered.

The application of doctrines involves practical judgment, but don’t confuse the application of doctrines with the doctrines themselves; those are very different things.

We don’t know the act to be good or bad if we don’t consider the circumstances.

Circumstances don’t generally change the moral nature of an act. If a reasonable action is taken with reasonable expectation that the outcome will be beneficial then, while the act may be unwise, it cannot be immoral. In its moral sense good and bad are not determined by the outcome.

Without that full consideration, the treatment of the subject has an academic flavor.

We can understand the doctrines without resolving how they apply; that’s what I’ve focused on. Regarding capital punishment, the doctrine is either that it is allowed or it isn’t, and we should be able to resolve that point even if we disagree over when it is wise to apply it.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Circumstances don’t generally change the moral nature of an act.

Lets start at the very beginning. Do you accept that the act of killing a human being is a natural evil because human life is a natural good?

 

[Rau]

The application of doctrines involves practical judgment, but don’t confuse the application of doctrines with the doctrines themselves; those are very different things.

Ender - the principals by which the morality of acts is determined are fixed. The fact that acts of CP can be moral is doctrinal, but said doctrine does not require suspending said principals.

Circumstances don’t generally change the moral nature of an act.

Well theft is theft Ender. But the goodness of every act requires 3 “good” fonts, and one of those fonts depends on how we see the effects of the act. Acts of CP should be eschewed if they do more harm than good. In that circumstance they might rightfully be called inadmissible.

Regarding capital punishment, the doctrine is either that it is allowed or it isn’t, and we should be able to resolve that point even if we disagree over when it is wise to apply it.

The doctrine is that it is not intrinsically evil, and thus may well be allowable & appropriate. Or it might not, for reasons already addressed.

 

[Ender]

Acts of CP should be eschewed if they do more harm than good

Every time this is brought up I agree with it. Why is this still a concern?

The one caveat here is that we cannot really know ahead of time the full impact of an action. If I think the outcome will be good and you think it will be bad we are not simply justified in acting according to our expectations, we are compelled to. One of us will have made a mistake, but neither of us will have sinned.

What, then, makes capital punishment inadmissible? And what does that even mean?

 

[Rau]

What, then, makes capital punishment inadmissible? And what does that even mean?

The Popes are asserting with high conviction that at this time acts of CP do more harm than good and is therefore inadmissible. (I read “inadmissible” to mean “would be wrong to pursue”).

To repeat:

Acts of CP should be eschewed if they do more harm than good. In that circumstance they might rightfully be called inadmissible.

 

[Emeraldlady]

What, then, makes capital punishment inadmissible? And what does that even mean?

The Church is responding to false claims on Catholic teaching. In the past when civil society deemed the death penalty necessary to serve the common good, the Church spoke out against claims that it is never legitimate, and the civil judgement that it was necessary for the common good, made it admissible. Today as civil society deems the death penalty harmful to the common good, the Church is speaking out against the false claim that it can never be abolished and that the civil judgement that it is harmful makes it inadmissible.

 

[Ender]

The Popes are asserting with high conviction that at this time acts of CP do more harm than good and is therefore inadmissible. (I read “inadmissible” to mean “would be wrong to pursue”).

If that is the case then Francis hasn’t really changed anything: the objections remain prudential, and the claim that it “would be wrong to pursue” doesn’t mean it would be immoral to pursue, but only that it is thought to be unwise to do so.

This makes it difficult to understand the claim that only now do we fully understand man’s dignity and that CP is contrary to it. That doesn’t seem to matter if the objection is practical and not moral. The belief that CP does more harm than good is unquestionably a judgment; it is not a doctrine and does not require our assent. It may be an accurate judgment, that’s not really my point, and I haven’t tried to argue it. That we can agree it is an opinion is sufficient.

 

[Emeraldlady]

If that is the case then Francis hasn’t really changed anything: the objections remain prudential, and the claim that it “ would be wrong to pursue ” doesn’t mean it would be immoral to pursue, but only that it is thought to be unwise to do so.

“Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat,” -ST II II 64 2

Commands forbearance. Pretty black and white.

 

[Ender]

Commands forbearance. Pretty black and white.

Oh come now. We are commanded to forbear when in our judgment there is danger to the good, but if we do not judge it dangerous or harmful it is not forbidden. This passage identifies what is to be done in a particular circumstance. If that circumstance does not exist it does not apply.