Why the revised CCC 2267 is NOT a condemnation or contradiction of the historical Church’s teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter hmikell7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
On a practical level, it may be relevant to note that only 53 countries in the world still have the death penalty on the books for this to be an issue. And even fewer of those (the U.S. and maybe some island polities) have enough of a historical Christian influence that their position on the death penalty has ever been shaped by Christian/Catholic Scripture and Tradition, whether before or after this latest development.

Despite what some of the folks quoting Aquinas seem to think, it has never been wrong to refrain from using the death penalty, even when it would be deserved in strict justice. God Himself, who is perfectly just and does no wrong, has a notable record of sparing those guilty of capital crimes, from Cain to Moses to David to the woman caught in adultery. And of course, it’s possible to understand the heart of Christianity itself as God’s effort to find a way around executing the justly deserved death penalty on every one of us. And we know what He says about someone who receives mercy and then turns around and insists on strict justice for others.

In recognition of all this, without denying that capital punishment has been used justly and even under the direct command of God in the past, the Holy Father now follows our Lord in calling us to the more perfect way of being like Him and eschewing life-for-life, but rather granting mercy even to the undeserving because they, too, bear the image of God and are His beloved. It is in that sense, I think, rather than in an attempt to declare capital punishment always unjust or evil, that the Pope cites human dignity as a reason to refrain from this punishment.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
40.png
pnewton:
I note two key words in your article. One is “insinuates”. This term means that someone is adding to what the Pope said by deriving from it something more. The second word is “may.”
Click to expand...
There is more to the article by Feser than what I have quoted here.
Click to expand...
That may be, but he is still not the Pope. Should the Holy Father receive the most conideration?
 
Dissident priests are nothing new, neither is it new for Raymond Arroyo to play political provacateur. He is one of the reasons I quit watching EWTN, at least most of the time. We do not need any more like him stirring dissent.

On face value, Fr. Murray’s first statement is demonstratively wrong, as presented in the first post, and many other places.
 
Usagi said:
Execution is not self-defense. If you are in a position to execute someone, you have already established complete control over that person’s body and environment. They are helpless and at your mercy. Self-defense, even on some notional societal level, cannot possibly apply in that situation. If you can execute someone, you can imprison him indefinitely.
Click to expand...
Well, the objection was that complete control over the course of a lifetime might require inhumane conditions. If you cannot keep others safe without torturing the prisoner, then you can’t keep others safe. The state does not have the authority to torture prisoners, but does still theoretically have the authority to kill people in defense of the innocent.
 
pnewton said:
On face value, Fr. Murray’s first statement is demonstratively wrong, as presented in the first post, and many other places.
Click to expand...
However, from watching the presentation from EWTN, I come away with the impression that Father Murray and others on the program believe that you are demonstratively wrong. BTW, Father Murray is a canon lawyer. Do you also have similar credentials?
 
Last edited:
hmikell7 said:
And since when is EWTN the end all tell all conclusion to an argument?
Click to expand...
Who said that EWTN was the end all tell all conclusion to an argument? It is a highly respected Catholic organisation which is known to be faithful to Catholic teaching and Catholic values.
 
AlNg said:
BTW, Father Murray is a canon lawyer. Do you also have similar credentials?
Click to expand...
No, other than I understand English, and what is required for a contradiction. However, credentials in canon law are not credentials in theology. . Nothing else. He may have more credentials than me, but he has less than the Pope. It is not like I am saying this on my own, and journalist have never had a problem finding a priest here and there to support whatever contradiction they want.

The contradiction to X is “not X” To show a contradiction and substantiate the claim that the Pope is contradicting Church teaching, then there must be an “X” that is not implies, assumed or derived from what the Pope has said.

My only surprise is that it is so hare here to agree with the Holy Father. One of the best thing I liked about being Catholic was getting to leave all that stuff behind, where everyone was doing their own interpretation of the Bible for themselves. Little did I know how messy it got when you through in interpreting the Bible and tradition for yourself, and swapped from choosing the church that agreed with you, to choosing a priest that agrees with you.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
It is a highly respected Catholic organisation which is known to be faithful to Catholic teaching and Catholic values.
Click to expand...
The pope is a highly respected man who is know to be faithful to Catholic teaching and Catholic values.

He also has the authority of being the successor of Peter.
 
AlNg said:
40.png
pnewton:
other than I understand English
Click to expand...
I find that understanding English is not enough to understand some of the arcane theological discussions here.
Click to expand...
That may well be, but I do not understand how that affects this issue. Besides, if a priest cannot communicate well in his native tongue, then that is a different issue. Perhaps journalism and granting on air interviews is not for him.
 
PetraG said:
40.png
phil19034:
I agree.

Personally, while I totally believe the death penalty is over used in many parts of the United States, I do think there are some criminals who are too dangerous to be kept alive.
  • some criminal bosses run crime empires still from behind bars
  • some prisons are known for their gang recruitment
  • some criminals break the law from in prison
  • some terrorists are too dangerous to be kept alive
  • some crimes, like treason, terrorism, & war crimes are too disastrous to not have a death penalty option
Click to expand...
Crime empires have this way of continuing to exist after the boss is killed, and sometimes are even more violent in the chaos of “re-structuring.” The people working for these bosses do not return to quiet “private sector” lives of honest employment just because their boss is killed, regardless of who kills him.
Gang recruitment is not just done by murderers. How many people are you going to pre-emptively execute?
Law-breaking in prison is also done by non-murderers, which leads to the same question.
What does “too dangerous to be kept alive” even mean? Do you mean they can murder telekinetically? Or do you mean psychopaths ought to be executed?
The last point is the most inexplicable. In a world full of suicide bombers, what on earth makes you think that death would be a more terrifying prospect than the remainder of life spent under the control of your intended targets?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I think you misunderstood my post.

I am NOT claiming to know what kind of criminals are too dangerous to keep alive. I’m just acknowledging that the situation exists. Th I identification of those too dangerous to be kept alive is for someone with much more information than I.

However, I do defer to Church teaching, but I feel the new catechism wording is confusing because it doesn’t address war crimes, etc. It leaves the reader guessing if the Church is saying that the death penalty is even against Church teaching for people like the Nazi war criminals, etc.

So I don’t know if it is only addressing the “average” criminal who receives the death penalty today, or doesn’t it include even war criminals, etc?
 
phil19034 said:
So I don’t know if it is only addressing the “average” criminal who receives the death penalty today, or doesn’t it include even war criminals, etc?
Click to expand...
That’s a key point in the argument. “Inadmissible” can surely only mean “never, under no circumstances, whatever the crime.” That is the basic reason why I think rewriting CCC 2267 was a mistake.
 
hmikell7 said:
Now you’ve stepped out of disliking the current revision, and are in open opposition to the previous Catechism as well.

Matthew 5:38-43 eye for an eye (life for a life) no longer applies in the new covenant
Click to expand...
Why did Jesus tell the apostles to arm themselves?

He didn’t tell them to turn the other cheek
 
One of the biggest problems that I see to this change that was made by the pope is… what was wrong with how it was worded and addressed before in the CCC. It was clear, concise, not promoted, but also not condemned or called inadmissible. The prior teaching clearly did not sound like it went against prior church teaching and doctrines. But did emphasize the need to really question the use of the death penalty on an individual basis. It promoted dignity of the person without condemning the use of the death penalty when absolutely necessary. This new addition seems unnecessary and frankly more confusing considered the churches historical teachings than any church teaching should be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top