Dear diggerdomer,Yes it is a pro-life issue.
e.g. from the U.S. Bishops:
See usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf
This is what I said earlier. My problem with the paragraph I cited is that it adds a qualifying restriction that was never part of traditional teaching. As I said, the paragraph makes a statement that is factually incorrect.The traditional teaching is that the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.
Can you cite a Church document that supports your claim and refutes mine?Not as the Church understands and teaches about the dignity of the human person.
Given that the bishops uniformly oppose the death penalty is would be expected that most Catholics would accept that position, especially if they have not investigated what the Church has taught throughout her existence. I will suggest that the more you learn about the topic the less certain you will become that your position is correct.I’m not looking to start a debate on the attitudes of the Church over the past 2,000 years with regard to this issue. I will humbly point out that I don’t have enough knowledge on church history to debate that point.
Read the entire document.Dear diggerdomer,
How can capital punishment be a pro-life issue if it was God who originally mandated the death penalty (see Genesis 9: 6)? and how could St. Paul have spoken as he did in Romans 13: 4)?
Moreover the U.S. Bishops would surely need to press for yet another revision in the Catechism since even the present unsatisfactory statements allow for the death penalty, albeit in very rare an exceptional cases.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
You can find all kinds of references here: usccb.org/deathpenalty/index.shtmlThis is what I said earlier. My problem with the paragraph I cited is that it adds a qualifying restriction that was never part of traditional teaching. As I said, the paragraph makes a statement that is factually incorrect.
Can you cite a Church document that supports your claim and refutes mine?
Ender
If the bishops uniformly oppose something, it’s still up to the individual to learn history so as to prove them wrong? Don’t you think the Bishops know history too? You might have a different interpretation of history than they do, but it sounds as though you’re saying they are teaching erroneously because they don’t know history.Given that the bishops uniformly oppose the death penalty is would be expected that most Catholics would accept that position, especially if they have not investigated what the Church has taught throughout her existence. I will suggest that the more you learn about the topic the less certain you will become that your position is correct.
Ender
With all due respect for the USCCB, this is not a pro-life issue. Nowhere has the Church ever said that “respect for life” requires the abandonment of capital punishment. Even now the Church recognizes that its use may be appropriate. If the death penalty was always wrong it would be defined as intrinsically immoral, but it is not included in that category. We may wish to create a culture of life but that doesn’t change the fact that the Church has always identified exceptions when human life may be taken without sin - and one of those exceptions has always been capital punishment.Yes it is a pro-life issue. e.g. from the U.S. Bishops:
See usccb.org/sdwp/national/penaltyofdeath.pdf
This won’t do. I could respond that you should read the Summa to find all kinds of references supporting my position but when I cite the Summa I will provide the information for you to find the reference and read it for yourself. If you think there is something in that document that supports your position, tell me where it is so I can review it, don’t just say “It’s in there, go find it.”You can find all kinds of references here: usccb.org/deathpenalty/index.shtml
What I’m saying is very specific: the first paragraph of section 2267 contains a claim that is factually incorrect … and I’m far from alone in noticing it.You might have a different interpretation of history than they do, but it sounds as though you’re saying they are teaching erroneously because they don’t know history.
Of course, I accept that there are biblical passages that support the existence of capital punishment. To me the existence of capital punishment in the Bible is similar to the existence of slavery- it was an accepted norm at the time that modern societies can do without.Dear MacMarauder,
To state that you “do not think the death penalty serves any purpose other than appealing to our base human desires for revenge”, really does show a complete ignorance of the biblical teaching on capital punishment, as well as running counter to the consistent teaching of the Church up until 1995.
Well just to offer up something else to think about in this specific case, there is also the issue of martyrdom. Khalid Sheik Mohammad may actually gain more importance in the Islamic world if he is “martyred by the infidels” than if he is locked away somewhere cut off from society. This isn’t really something we have to worry about when discussing capital punishment in general, but from what I understand being a martyr is highly sought after for Islamic terrorists.There are other considerations. In the case of the Sheik, for example, would putting him in custody for the rest of his life give cause for thousands of others to rise up, seemingly in defense, and cause untold problems over the years for other, innocent, citizens around the world? It’s not something you can just put your finger on.
Dear MacMarauder,Of course, I accept that there are biblical passages that support the existence of capital punishment. To me the existence of capital punishment in the Bible is similar to the existence of slavery- it was an accepted norm at the time that modern societies can do without.
I will read some more of St. Aquinas’ thoughts on capital punishment since his writings have greatly shaped my life and I was confirmed with his name. It’s just very hard for me to accept capital punishment since I do not believe the government should regulate who lives and who dies and I really believe in Cardinal Bernardin’s Consistent Ethic of Life.
Finally, I do think this is one area where the Catholic church has some leeway and room for individual opinions. I respect people who differ from my opinion on this issue and don’t want to sound like I’m condemning anyone since that is never my intent!
Being “pro-life” is about a lot more than only acting against intrinsically evil acts.With all due respect for the USCCB, this is not a pro-life issue. Nowhere has the Church ever said that “respect for life” requires the abandonment of capital punishment. Even now the Church recognizes that its use may be appropriate. If the death penalty was always wrong it would be defined as intrinsically immoral, but it is not included in that category.
What do you mean that there are people who need the death penalty?Anyone who thinks that reasons for death penalty don’t exist in America has never been in a position of having to protect it from the kind of people who need the death penalty, if for no other reason that there is no such thing as complete containment.
Yes, you could quote the Summa just as anyone can. What relevance the quote had would of course have to be understood historically and theologically in light of Tradition. And the authoritative teacher of Tradition is the Magisterium. Current Magisterial teaching seems, as I read what you write, to have a take on the death penalty that is different than yours. Which is fine, you’re free to follow whatever beliefs you want.This won’t do. I could respond that you should read the Summa to find all kinds of references supporting my position but when I cite the Summa I will provide the information for you to find the reference and read it for yourself. If you think there is something in that document that supports your position, tell me where it is so I can review it, don’t just say “It’s in there, go find it.”
What I’m saying is very specific: the first paragraph of section 2267 contains a claim that is factually incorrect … and I’m far from alone in noticing it.
*The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception. …*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II.
(Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Professor, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome - 2007)
Ender
In Ephesians 5 Paul tells slaves to be obedient to their masters. Just one example. The Church no longer teaches that.Dear MacMarauder,
One cannot equate slavery with capital punishment; the latter was mandated by God Himself (Gen. 9: 6) whereas slavery originated from fallen man and his sinful desire to keep his fellow man in subservience by cruel coercion - there is simply no parallel.
As St. Paul makes perfectly clear in that Romans passage (13: 1-7) “the governing authorities…have been instituted by God” (v. 1) and as such they have the divine right to “…execute his (i.e. God’s) wrath on the wrongdoer” as the “servant of God” (v. 4). Thus the State does, as God’s Servant, have the right to decide who lives and who dies after due legal process. This is not a matter of personal opinion but of biblical teaching, and New Testament teaching at that.
Don’t worry you do not sound condemnatory or uncharitable, but I just do not see how the abolitionist standpoint can be squared by an impartial reading of Sacred Scripture.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
What do you mean that everyone has an equal right to life?What do you mean that there are people who need the death penalty?
I think Catholic teaching says that.What do you mean that everyone has an equal right to life?
One thing to keep in mind is that Cardinal Bernardin himself stated that he accepted Aquinas’ teaching on the subject. The Consistent Ethic of Life that +Bernardin preached included, as Aquinas taugh, capital punishment in certain circumstances.It’s just very hard for me to accept capital punishment since I do not believe the government should regulate who lives and who dies and I really believe in Cardinal Bernardin’s Consistent Ethic of Life.!
The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that “Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the State has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime.” Joseph Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the “Consistent Ethic of Life” at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the “classical position” that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment.
Cardinal Dulles is quite correct here, as for either of those two men to say otherwise was to teach against the Church itselfAlthough Cardinal Bernardin advocated what he called a “consistent ethic of life,” he made it clear that capital punishment should not be equated with the crimes of abortion, euthanasia, and suicide. Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed in Evangelium Vitae (1995) that “the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral.” But he wisely included in that statement the word “innocent.” He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty.