You Shall NOT Kill!

[Ender]

I respectfully submit, since 2267 can be read in the CCC, that it is indeed a teaching of the Church, and not the private opinion of any pope.

Sure, that’s the obvious conclusion, so let me explain why I think this particular section (and this section alone) is the prudential opinion of JPII and not doctrine.

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Cardinal McCarrick, 2004)

This is not definitive since it could mean only that Catholics may disagree about whether the guidelines apply in a particular instance rather than that they may disagree about the guidelines themselves … but it is suggestive that the broader interpretation applies.

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in working to end the use of the death penalty. (USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, 2005)

If 2267 is doctrine then this statement is incomprehensible. About what doctrine would it make sense for the bishops to say “people of goodwill disagree” but **“we offer neither judgment nor condemnation”? Which doctrine would the bishops promote by saying “we hope” our reflections lead to conversion and “our goal is … to persuade Catholics”?

" *The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that *…" (Cardinal Dulles, Catholicism and Capital Punishment, 2001)

This is absolutely definitive: Dulles is saying that 2267 is a prudential judgment.

There are a number of other prominent Catholics who have studied this question and who have concluded the same thing; I have not cited them because their opinions are not as significant as the opinions of those within the Church hierarchy. I am by no means alone in taking this position.

I am not surprised you question my claim, many people do, so I appreciate the way you rejected my conclusion without attacking my intentions.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

Sure, that’s the obvious conclusion, so let me explain why I think this particular section (and this section alone) is the prudential opinion of JPII and not doctrine.

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Cardinal McCarrick, 2004)

This is not definitive since it could mean only that Catholics may disagree about whether the guidelines apply in a particular instance rather than that they may disagree about the guidelines themselves … but it is suggestive that the broader interpretation applies.

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in working to end the use of the death penalty. (USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, 2005)

If 2267 is doctrine then this statement is incomprehensible. About what doctrine would it make sense for the bishops to say “people of goodwill disagree” and “we offer neither judgment nor condemnation”? Which doctrine would the bishops promote by saying “we hope” our reflections lead to conversion and “our goal is … to persuade Catholics”?

" The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that …" (Cardinal Dulles, Catholicism and Capital Punishment, 2001)

This is absolutely definitive: Dulles is saying that 2267 is a prudential judgment.

There are a number of other prominent Catholics who have studied this question and who have concluded the same thing; I have not cited them because their opinions are not as significant as the opinions of those within the Church hierarchy. I am by no means alone in taking this position.

Ender

You go beyond this. You argue for the use of capital punishment. I guess you have more insight than JPII…

 

[Ender]

You go beyond this. You argue for the use of capital punishment.

One issue at a time. If 2267 is doctrine then my position is wrong whether or not I go beyond “this.” My comments were meant to support my claim that 2267 is not doctrine but prudential opinion and therefore not binding on our consciences. If you accept that claim we can move on; if you reject the claim then you should address the arguments I presented.

I guess you have more insight than JPII…

I see you chopped off the last sentence from my earlier post, which I guess is not surprising since it certainly wouldn’t apply to this comment. Do you need to reassess your “I espouse charity” claim?

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

One issue at a time. If 2267 is doctrine then my position is wrong whether or not I go beyond “this.” My comments were meant to support my claim that 2267 is not doctrine but prudential opinion and therefore not binding on our consciences. If you accept that claim we can move on; if you reject the claim then you should address the arguments I presented.

I see you chopped off the last sentence from my earlier post, which I guess is not surprising since it certainly wouldn’t apply to this comment. Do you need to reassess your “I espouse charity” claim?

Ender

If anything got chopped, it was forum error…as a rule I don’t edit quotes

 

[donsnow]

Sure, that’s the obvious conclusion, so let me explain why I think this particular section (and this section alone) is the prudential opinion of JPII and not doctrine.

“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Cardinal McCarrick, 2004)

This is not definitive since it could mean only that Catholics may disagree about whether the guidelines apply in a particular instance rather than that they may disagree about the guidelines themselves … but it is suggestive that the broader interpretation applies.

The death penalty arouses deep passions and strong convictions. People of goodwill disagree. In these reflections, we offer neither judgment nor condemnation but instead encourage engagement and dialogue, which we hope may lead to re-examination and conversion. Our goal is not just to proclaim a position, but to persuade Catholics and others to join us in working to end the use of the death penalty. (USCCB, A Culture of Life and the Penalty of Death, 2005)

If 2267 is doctrine then this statement is incomprehensible. About what doctrine would it make sense for the bishops to say “people of goodwill disagree” but **“we offer neither judgment nor condemnation”? Which doctrine would the bishops promote by saying “we hope” our reflections lead to conversion and “our goal is … to persuade Catholics”?

" The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that …" (Cardinal Dulles, Catholicism and Capital Punishment, 2001)

This is absolutely definitive: Dulles is saying that 2267 is a prudential judgment.

There are a number of other prominent Catholics who have studied this question and who have concluded the same thing; I have not cited them because their opinions are not as significant as the opinions of those within the Church hierarchy. I am by no means alone in taking this position.

I am not surprised you question my claim, many people do, so I appreciate the way you rejected my conclusion without attacking my intentions.

Ender

Hi, Ender -

You are reasonable in all that you write. However, my little military mind sees this a little differently. Regardless of the behind the scenes discussions, the wording to paragraph 2267 of the CCC has been finalized as printed. To me, that means until the next Catechism comes out, that’s where it stands.

So, for these reasons, I disagree with your stand on this, and am willing to agree to disagree.

 

[Ender]

Regardless of the behind the scenes discussions, the wording to paragraph 2267 of the CCC has been finalized as printed. To me, that means until the next Catechism comes out, that’s where it stands.

A very sensible position, but it’s not quite as simple as that. The wording of 2260 and 2266 have been finalized as printed as well and I can’t find a way to reconcile what they say with what 2267 says. If you ignore everything the Church has ever written on the subject then you can accept 2267 and move on, but it seems more reasonable to me to accept everything else and disregard 2267 since there is no possible way of accepting everything. I think you will see this if you try to defend 2267 with any argument other than “the Catechism says so.” An argument, by the way, that applies equally to 2260 and 2266.

Ender

 

[CWBetts]

A very sensible position, but it’s not quite as simple as that. The wording of 2260 and 2266 have been finalized as printed as well and I can’t find a way to reconcile what they say with what 2267 says. If you ignore everything the Church has ever written on the subject then you can accept 2267 and move on, but it seems more reasonable to me to accept everything else and disregard 2267 since there is no possible way of accepting everything. I think you will see this if you try to defend 2267 with any argument other than “the Catechism says so.” An argument, by the way, that applies equally to 2260 and 2266.

Ender

Some people will use any excuse that can to justify themselves…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Some people will use any excuse that can to justify themselves…

The same can be said of the other side.

There is no way that 2267 can be read as a definitive exclusion of the use of the death penalty.

It states, “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

Now while it does also say, "If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. "

And that today it is the belief of the author of the Catechism that such is almost always the case one can argue against that.

We must remember that others who are in prision have a right to be protected and there are numerous cases where one person in prision preys upon others in prision as well as the staff there. There are numerous cases were a person convicted of a violent crime (murder) commits the same crime against those who are jailed with them or against staff members.

So one could successfully argue that there are not “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor” according to our legal system as locking someone up with 100% no contact with anyone is not possible.

Having said that the Catechism is not just a list of doctrines that must be adhered to, it is more than and less than that.

This is something that we are free to have different opinions on. The non-negotiable are the dogmas of the Church.

 

[donsnow]

A very sensible position, but it’s not quite as simple as that. The wording of 2260 and 2266 have been finalized as printed as well and I can’t find a way to reconcile what they say with what 2267 says. If you ignore everything the Church has ever written on the subject then you can accept 2267 and move on, but it seems more reasonable to me to accept everything else and disregard 2267 since there is no possible way of accepting everything. I think you will see this if you try to defend 2267 with any argument other than “the Catechism says so.” An argument, by the way, that applies equally to 2260 and 2266.

Ender

Why didn’t you agree to disagree, when I offered, instead of going on?

Well, then. Read a few chapters of the book of Proverbs in the OT. You will see a pattern of couplets, seeming contradictions, but each couplet represents both sides of a paradox. Common sense tells us, there’s time to do one thing, but later you may have to do just the opposite with another person in different circumstances. See what I mean?

To sum up our conversation, because this post ends my part of it with you about paragraph 2267. The heart of the matter, is that it has become finalized in the CCC, until the next Catechism is published.

Peace.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why didn’t you agree to disagree, when I offered, instead of going on?

Well, then. Read a few chapters of the book of Proverbs in the OT. You will see a pattern of couplets, seeming contradictions, but each couplet represents both sides of a paradox. Common sense tells us, there’s time to do one thing, but later you may have to do just the opposite with another person in different circumstances. See what I mean?

To sum up our conversation, because this post ends my part of it with you about paragraph 2267. The heart of the matter, is that it has become finalized in the CCC, until the next Catechism is published.

Peace.

I do not want to speak for Ender but this is my issue with the “agree to disagree” on this issue.

You take the stand, if I am correct, that 2267 is doctrine and can not be disagreed with. Ender does not agree with that (neither do I). To agree to disagree with you sort of gives you the “win” on the matter. Either it is doctrine and can not be disagreed with or it is not and can be disagreed with, there is no middle ground, no agreeing to disagree on the matter.

This is like saying that the speed limit in a school zone during school hours in the State of Arizona is 15mph and someone else saying that it is 25mph. That is not something we can agree to disagree on because one of us will get a ticket even if we agreed to disagree.

 

[donsnow]

I do not want to speak for Ender but this is my issue with the “agree to disagree” on this issue.

You take the stand, if I am correct, that 2267 is doctrine and can not be disagreed with. Ender does not agree with that (neither do I). To agree to disagree with you sort of gives you the “win” on the matter. Either it is doctrine and can not be disagreed with or it is not and can be disagreed with, there is no middle ground, no agreeing to disagree on the matter.

This is like saying that the speed limit in a school zone during school hours in the State of Arizona is 15mph and someone else saying that it is 25mph. That is not something we can agree to disagree on because one of us will get a ticket even if we agreed to disagree.

ByzCath -

I don’t “win” anything.

This is exactly the type of thing we can agree to disagree on, your rationale notwithstanding. When we do that, neither of us lose, a win-win propostion.

Your rationale permits a quarrel; to agree to disagree lets us part peacefully; which is what I want to do. So, let’s go on to the OP, OK?

Thank you

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is exactly the type of thing we can agree to disagree on, your rationale notwithstanding.

Your rationale permits a quarrel; to agree to disagree lets us part peacefully, which is what I’m doing now, so don’t bring it up to me, again.

Sounds good to me. I hope you are not upset with me on this.

 

[donsnow]

Sounds good to me. I hope you are not upset with me on this.

Not anymore

We’re each entitled to our respective opinions, and all that

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

This kind of attachment to things falls under the sin of avarice, which incidentally, is a violation of the same commandment to which you cling. Read your Catechism. It very much DOES matter that God owns everything. He can give and take has He so chooses. Sometimes he will take by way of natural disaster, sometimes by human instrument. Way do you react with so much hate at the suggestion that we need to place less value on things we have now, instead of the eternal?

Way to miss my point, again. I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you. I don’t give a schmuck about what a person steals from me. It’s the fact that that person is stealing. The way that you insinuate robbers are instruments of God is a joke. If that is so, why does He forbid us, His creations from doing it? Are you saying that God breaks his own rules? That’s a laugh. Way to prove the atheists right.

The difference between a natural disaster and a human thief is that the former has no free will. Stealing is an abuse of free will. That’s why it’s a sin. That’s why it shouldn’t be tolerated. That’s why if a person chooses to steal from me, there’s only one consequence for him. It’s either a fist, a foot, or a barrel in his face.

 

[CWBetts]

Way to miss my point, again. I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you. I don’t give a schmuck about what a person steals from me. It’s the fact that that person is stealing. The way that you insinuate robbers are instruments of God is a joke. If that is so, why does He forbid us, His creations from doing it? Are you saying that God breaks his own rules? That’s a laugh. Way to prove the atheists right.

The difference between a natural disaster and a human thief is that the former has no free will. Stealing is an abuse of free will. That’s why it’s a sin. That’s why it shouldn’t be tolerated. That’s why if a person chooses to steal from me, there’s only one consequence for him. It’s either a fist, a foot, or a barrel in his face.

What gives you the right to threaten the life of someone who is not threatening yours?

 

[donsnow]

Way to miss my point, again. I don’t know how to make it any clearer to you. I don’t give a schmuck about what a person steals from me. It’s the fact that that person is stealing. The way that you insinuate robbers are instruments of God is a joke. If that is so, why does He forbid us, His creations from doing it? Are you saying that God breaks his own rules? That’s a laugh. Way to prove the atheists right.

The difference between a natural disaster and a human thief is that the former has no free will. Stealing is an abuse of free will. That’s why it’s a sin. That’s why it shouldn’t be tolerated. That’s why if a person chooses to steal from me, there’s only one consequence for him. It’s either a fist, a foot, or a barrel in his face.

Check out Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, Matt chaps 5, 6 & 7. That’s where some of us are coming from.
Theft is a sin. We’re all sinners of one kind or another. Any sin makes us no better than any other sinner.
That’s all I want to say.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Lost Wanderer, maybe you and the others can profit from something I learned, for when our lives go through rough times. Each time I came home to a broken-into and ransacked house, I first praised God in it and thanked God for it. We are supposed to do that, with all things. It’s all the more pleasant to do that for good things
Next, I told myself each time, “This is a test of my faith.” And tried to keep faith with God, through it all. That could help your attitude and it won’t hurt to do that.
Just thought I’d pass that along.

Well I’m not sure I can be that positive (I’m a pretty pessimistic person). Still, one good thing I can say about such experiences are the things I learn from stuff like that (though, I admit, I get a little resentful). It teaches me that I should be more vigilant.

I value the virtue of earning things honestly and cannot stand people who take things “the easy way” (a.k.a. stealing). Heck I wouldn’t care if you stole from a corrupt politician or a pimp drug dealer. Those people are thieves by themselves. However, if you steal from a person like me, who’s worked hard and honestly for his keep, you’re taking something that I have a right to for your own benefit and I don’t like that. It’s a painfully unfair thing you can do to a person.

So with that said (and I hope you don’t take things the wrong way ) but if someone ever tried to rob me at broken-bottle point, I hope I’d have enough martial arts experience by then to give him a taste of what real Tekken is like.

Then again, I’d be glad too if nobody tried to steal from me and I won’t have to traumatize anybody. >_>;; I wouldn’t wanna be the Delinquent Student for any martial arts master. <.<;;

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

What gives you the right to threaten the life of someone who is not threatening yours?

When that someone is abusing free will and thinks he can get away with no consequences.
Furthermore, you do know most criminals mug instead just snatching right?

Personally, I wouldn’t get rough with a snatcher. They’re too cowardly to fight otherwise they wouldn’t use a tactic like that. I’d just trip him up, take back what’s mine, and be on my way. On bad days I might just bonk him on the head but that’s it.

 

[CWBetts]

I guess mi point is that its just stuff, and in the vas majority of cases, replaceable

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I guess mi point is that its just stuff, and in the vas majority of cases, replaceable

I agree too (but don’t thing replacing is going to be easy either, especially since you don’t live in a Third World Country and your family struggling to keep their business afloat).

My point is when you take something from someone who has honestly earned it, you are being unfair when you have done nothing to deserve it. Such a thing is wrong and thieves should know its wrong by suffering the consequences of their actions. The best teaching consequences though will always be that the person they stole from takes back what’s his, the hard way.