Catholic Bishops Plan Drive Against Death Penalty

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Mar 21 2005, 03:16 PM'] It has the weight of the Papal Magisterium behind it as an authoritative expression of the faith, just as the Pope through his Ordinary Magisterium can confirm an existing doctrine of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. But when the Pope confirms a doctrine, as in the case of the immorality of abortion or euthanasia, or when he stated that priestly ordination is reserved to men alone, the confirm, which participates in the infallibility of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, is not the source of the definitive nature of the doctrine in question. [/quote]
Again, the "weight" of the Catechism is in the whole, not in individual teachings. A teaching does not receive extra weight because they are in the Catechism. They have the whatever weight they have in the documents in which they are taught, and to determine that, you have to look elsewhere.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 03:04 PM'] burn,

I'm sorry that you see no difference between Charles Manson and an infant. Perhaps that says more about you than it does about us. [/quote]
Oh please. The overarching reason I've gotten over in the abortion thread is that you shouldn't kill a fetus becuase zie's human and zie has a soul. If this is true, then why does that change once zie has left the womb?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:19 PM'] Again, the "weight" of the Catechism is in the whole, not in individual teachings. A teaching does not receive extra weight because they are in the Catechism. They have the whatever weight they have in the documents in which they are taught, and to determine that, you have to look elsewhere. [/quote]
Nor have I said that the Catechism adds authority to the doctrines taught, but the Catechism is an authentic expression of the faith as a whole, and so it has an authority in its own right, not infallible of course, but authentic.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:15 PM'] On the other hand, you say that the Church demands civil rulers kill people even when there is no danger to society. You haven't pointed to the document of the ordinary magisterium that makes this claim. [/quote]
Civil authorities are required before God to do their duty, and that duty may include the use of the death penalty in capital cases.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Mar 21 2005, 03:18 PM'] Humanae Vitae is simply the confirmation of an already existing infallible doctrine of the Church, it is not a new definition of the faith. The same is true with the Pope's letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which simply confirms and reaffirms an existing infallible doctrine [i]de fide tenenda[/i]. [/quote]
I agree. But this doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.

In an effort to get back on track:

The only thing in dispute here is your claim that the Church demands civil rulers kill people EVEN WHEN there is no threat to society. The only proof you have provided for this assertion is the Roman Catechism, which as I have already showed, does not say anything of the sort.

You have asserted very matter-of-factly that civil rulers are bound by Ecclesiastical doctrine to kill people even when they aren't a threat to society. All I want is an equally matter-of-fact assertion by the Magisterium.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Mar 21 2005, 03:22 PM'] Civil authorities are required before God to do their duty, and that duty may include the use of the death penalty in capital cases. [/quote]
I agree. When a criminial poses a continued threat to society, and this threat cannot be stopped, then the civil authority has a DUTY to kill him.

The same is not true when the criminial is NOT a threat to society. The civil ruler MAY have a RIGHT to kill him, but he does not have a DUTY.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:15 PM'] The ordinary Magisterium is not some magical collection of teachings. They are concrete. Humanae Vitae, for example, is a document of the Ordinary Magisterium. I can say "contraception" is wrong and point to the document where this is contained.
[/quote]
The illicit nature of contraception does not arise with the teaching in Humanae Vitae, rather, Humanae Vitae is a confirmation of an infallible teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. I suggest you read Fr. Ford and Germain Grisez's article on this topic entitled, "Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium," [u]Theological Studies[/u] 39, Issue 2 (Jun 1978): 258-312.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 21 2005, 03:19 PM'] Oh please. The overarching reason I've gotten over in the abortion thread is that you shouldn't kill a fetus becuase zie's human and zie has a soul. If this is true, then why does that change once zie has left the womb? [/quote]
You got some bad information. It is wrong to kill a baby because they are innocent, not because they are human. While human life is very important into the equation, it is not an absolute factor.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Mar 21 2005, 03:26 PM'] The illicit nature of contraception does not arise with the teaching in Humanae Vitae, rather, Humanae Vitae is a confirmation of an infallible teaching of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. I suggest you read Fr. Ford and Germain Grisez's article on this topic entitled, "Contraception and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium," [u]Theological Studies[/u] 39, Issue 2 (Jun 1978): 258-312. [/quote]
Thank you for the reference. But I don't want to get sidetracked on contraception.

The only thing we have to clarify is the Magisterial nature of your assertion. After that, I'm satisfied. Where does the Magisterium assert that the civil authorties MUST kill even when there is no threat to human life?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:25 PM'] I agree. When a criminial poses a continued threat to society, and this threat cannot be stopped, then the civil authority has a DUTY to kill him.

The same is not true when the criminial is NOT a threat to society. The civil ruler MAY have a RIGHT to kill him, but he does not have a DUTY. [/quote]
You are advocating a novel teaching. The Church has never reduced the duty of the State in capital cases to simply defending the public from further harm; instead, the Church has always insisted on the necessity of restoring the moral order through retributive justice, and so the death penalty, depending upon the gravity of the case, may be required in order to restore justice.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Mar 21 2005, 03:30 PM'] You are advocating a novel teaching. The Church has never reduced the duty of the State in capital cases to simply defending the public from further harm; instead, the Church has always insisted on the necessity of restoring the moral order through retributive justice, and so the death penalty, depending upon the gravity of the case, may be required in order to restore justice. [/quote]
Again, you keep asserting that capital punishment is required (as opposed to allowed) even when there is no threat to human life.

JUST ONE MAGISTERIAL REFERENCE, please.

[Apotheoun]

If a man kills his own parents, retributive justice demands his own death.

In this case the death penalty will both protect society from further harm, while it will simultaneously restore justice.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:31 PM'] Again, you keep asserting that capital punishment is required (as opposed to allowed) even when there is no threat to human life.

JUST ONE MAGISTERIAL REFERENCE, please. [/quote]
Have you read any books on Catholic moral theology written prior to Vatican II?

[Guest Eremite]

I don't care about what Catholic theologians think. All I want to know is if the Magisterium teaches what you say it teaches, or not. If it does, then you should be able to prove it. I'm not trying to pull teeth here. I just want one reference to a Magisterial assertion that civil rulers MUST kill even when there is no threat to society.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:36 PM'] I don't care about what Catholic theologians think. All I want to know is if the Magisterium teaches what you say it teaches, or not. If it does, then you should be able to prove it. I'm not trying to pull teeth here. I just want one reference to a Magisterial assertion that civil rulers MUST kill even when there is no threat to society. [/quote]
That may be part of your problem. The theological manuals used before Vatican II do express the teaching of the Magisterium on issues, and your lack of familiarity with Catholic moral theology may explain why you seek to reduce capital punishment to the protection of society from further harm, while totally ignoring the reestablishment of justice, which also plays a part in any punishment inflicted by the civil authorities.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='burnsspivey' date='Mar 21 2005, 04:02 PM'] Hang on a second...it's okay to kill a human if we've convicted zir of a crime, but not if zie's a fetus who will kill zir host?  I'm sorry, but what?  Why is the death penalty okay, but abortion is murder?  A human is a human no matter how small, right?  So a human is a human no matter how large.  But, suddenly, it's okay to kill them?  When does this start?  When they reach 18?  Except, no, if they've asked for death we can't help them out.  Only if they've been convicted of a crime.

That's internal consistency for you. 

*boggles* [/quote]
we have some common ground here. Catholics we should have a [i]consistent[/i] ethic of life. that means abortion is wrong, euthanasia is wrong, and the death penalty should be used as self-defense, say when a psychopath just kills without remorse and has given no indication that he will stop. As far as restoring justice goes I think we should simply make it a matter of safety and leave justice out of it. Too easy to insert our own interpretation of justice. Much easier to agree that something is dangerous.
Killing juveniles is especially heinous.
The problem is that humans have their own sense of justice, and it's based on feelings. It feels fair to kill somebody just cause they committed a crime, and it feels fair to kill your child because you don't want him or her, and it feels fair to end the suffering of a sick person because you tell yourself you wouldn't want to live that way. Doesn't make it so. There's a fierce satisfaction in revenge. When we dress revenge up as justice it's not a good thing.

Edited March 21, 2005 by toledo_jesus

[Guest Eremite]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Mar 21 2005, 03:40 PM'] That may be part of your problem.  The theological manuals used before Vatican II do express the teaching of the Magisterium on issues, and your lack of familiarity with Catholic moral theology may explain why you seek to reduce capital punishment to the protection of society from further harm, while totally ignoring the reestablishment of justice, which also plays a part in any punishment inflicted by the civil authorities. [/quote]

1) I have not reduced Capital Punishment to a protection of human life. What I have done is raised the question on whether or not the Holy Father has done so, and expressed a desire for a clarification from the Holy See.

2) Theology manuals express a lot of things. Just because something is popular theology doesn't make it Magisterial teaching. Limbo is an excellent example of this. You can point to many theology manuals teaching its existence, yet they have no relevance to Catholics, because it is not a Magisterial teaching. If your assertion is truly Magisterial, you should be able to show it as such, and not just cite theology manuals.

3) I agree retribution is a vital element to punishment. Where I disagree is that the civil authorites are morally obligated to use lethal retribution. The Church has never taught this.

Edited March 21, 2005 by Eremite

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:47 PM']1) I have not reduced Capital Punishment to a protection of human life. What I have done is raised the question on whether or not the Holy Father has done so, and expressed a desire for a clarification from the Holy See.[/quote]
It is not possible for the Pope to alter the Tradition of the Church, so no clarification of the Pope's prudential comments in [u]Evangelium Vitae[/u] is necessary.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:47 PM']2) Theology manuals express a lot of things. Just because something is popular theology doesn't make it Magisterial teaching. Limbo is an excellent example of this. You can point to many theology manuals teaching its existence, yet they have no relevance to Catholics, because it is not a Magisterial teaching. If your assertion is truly Magisterial, you should be able to show it as such, and not just cite theology manuals.[/quote]
The old manuals were all approved by the Church and were used in her official institutions of higher learning. They are not merely the opinions of theologians, but in some sense they reflect the faith of the Church and the teaching of the Magisterium on particular doctrinal and moral issues.

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 01:47 PM']3) I agree retribution is a vital element to punishment. Where I disagree is that the civil authorites are morally obligated to use lethal retribution. The Church has never taught this.[/quote]
As St. Thomas wrote in the Summa, "It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws [b][i]command[/i][/b] such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more." Capital punishment is about more than simply protecting society from further harm. It also about the restoration of justice, and in the case of capital offenses, the death of the criminal may be required, depending upon the circumstances, in order to restore the common good. As an example: If Hitler had been captured at the end of World War II, the only proper punishment that could have been inflicted upon him would have been his death. The gravity of his crimes against humanity were so great, that only his execution would have restored the moral order which he had attacked and harmed by the murder of countless millions of innocent people.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]It is not possible for the Pope to alter the Tradition of the Church, so no clarification of the Pope's prudential comments in Evangelium Vitae is necessary.[/quote]

This, of course, is dependent upon your private understanding of the tradition of the Church, which may or may not be right.

[quote]They are not merely the opinions of theologians, but in some sense they reflect the faith of the Church and the teaching of the Magisterium on particular doctrinal and moral issues.[/quote]

They may reflect the faith of the Church, but they are not Magisterial. Furthermore, just because a theological opinion is expressed doesn't make it doctrine. As the Holy See notes in its document on the vocation of the theologian, theology and magisterium have different, but closely united, roles.

[quote]"It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways.[/quote]

First of all, St. Thomas is not a Magisterial authority.

HOWEVER, even St. Thomas doesn't say what you do. Note why the civil authorites are "commanded" to inflict capital punishment: "because there is a greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways." St. Thomas doesn't enjoin the same command if the criminal will not "likely harm others". He may admit the RIGHT, but not the command.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Mar 21 2005, 02:16 PM'] This, of course, is dependent upon your private understanding of the tradition of the Church, which may or may not be right. [/quote]
Yes, it is my understanding based upon the various Magisterial documents that I've read throughout my life, and upon the theological texts that I've read, and in addition, it is based upon what I've learned while working on my MA in Theology.

God bless,
Todd