Church's Stand

[Guest Aluigi]

show me the Teaching or Tradition that says one cannot imprison for life as well? That is a viable alternative perfectly in line with the teaching of the Church, the alternative just has never been practically applicable in the past.

the Bible's commandment for the death penalty is not something that must literally be applied always and everywhere. God commanded the death penalty and has always supported it, and still does. but He does not consider it a requirement unless the criminal cannot be justly contained practically.

the Church responds to new world environments she encounters in her journey through time based on technology and such, changing political and social conditions. with a pracitcal alternative whereby the person's life is still stripped from them in just retribution but they remain in prison the rest of their life, it can be used if the criminal is not going to be a continued violent person

[CatholicforChrist]

And I think you are treading on infinitely more dangerous ground challenging EVERY PREVIOUS catechism of the Church, including the Roman Catechism, which was promulgated by the infallible authority of the Council of Trent. I also find you treading infinitely dangerous ground by challenging the very Word of God Itself and the commands of God. The CCC is not part of the Word of God (Scripture and Tradition). The Old Testament is (and the Roman Catechism is a sure authority on the matter because it was promulgated by an infallible Council of the Church).

[popestpiusx]

Here is a pretty good article from Fr. Rutler, of EWTN fame, published in the National Catholic Register:

Death Penalty Symposium
Scalia's Right: Catechism's Problematic

by
Fr. George Rutler
National Catholic Register
March 24-31, 2002
Many Americans dismissed Alexander Solzhenitsyn when he criticized the decadence of Western Culture. Others more recently ignored his plea for a restoration of the death penalty: "There are times when the state needs capital punishment in order to save society." This is Christian doctrine. Since popes are preserved from essential error by "grace of state," none has wrongly claimed authority to call capital punishment morally evil.
"Development of doctrine" does not apply here.
As the Church's teaching on contraception cannot "develop" in a way that would declare its intrinsic evil to be good, so the right of a state to execute criminals cannot "develop" so that its intrinsic good becomes evil. For Cardinal John Henry Newman, development of doctrine involves "preservation of type." Changes in the way a doctrine is expressed and applied cannot alter its essence.
Some Catholics, who once pointed out the flaws in the "seamless garment" argument, now rush to put on that garment as though there has been a sudden development. By definition, the development of doctrine cannot happen overnight. The new edition of the Catechism revises the section on capital punishment. This was not a development of doctrine. It was, however, problematic for placing a prudential judgment in a catechetical text, more problematically so than in an encyclical like Evangelium Vitae. Paragraph 2266 of the Catechism names the primary consideration of retribution, but No. 2267 ignores it.
That the vast majority of opinion has turned against capital punishment is irrelevant to the case and is not universally so. Nor is it universally so that penal systems have improved in a way that renders capital punishment unnecessary. There are many very different systems.
There has been a development, not in essential doctrine, but in moral criticism. Here, I am edified by the fine scholastic logic of Justice Scalia, as when he identifies the mistaken modern equation of private morality and governmental morality.
Catholics have distinguished between peace and pacifism. They disserve systematic theology when they fail to make a parallel distinction between the dignity of life and a total ban on capital punishment. The cogency of Catholic apologetics crumbles when reason is abandoned for sentimentality in consequence of philosophical idealism and subjectivism. We also may be witnessing here some tension between personalist phenomenology and Thomist realism.
Absolute rejection of capital punishment weakens the cogency of pro-life apologetics. Some churchmen cite skewered statistics on the execution of innocent victims.
Since 1973 the present U.S. system has overturned about 33% of all convictions, although only .6% of those criminals were found to be factually innocent. DNA testing makes justice ever more secure, and capital offenders receive due process far more deliberately than other offenders. In numerous instances, e.g. the defeat of Senator John Ashcroft, strongly anti-abortion politicians have lost elections to pro-abortion candidates who were against capital punishment. This gets worse when criminals, freed in response to ecclesiastical appeals for mercy, kill again.
The pastoral commentary of the Church guides moral method, but the prudential calculus, in punishment as in the declaration of war, rests in the civil government whose authority pertains to natural law and is not granted by the Church. To propose otherwise under the guise of doctrinal development would be a species of clerical triumphalism that post-Enlightenment humanists claimed to abhor. Few see this as clearly as a distinguished Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Father Rutler is pastor of the Church of our Saviour in New York.

[CatholicforChrist]

I think it is interesting that PSPX and I agree on so many issues. I am beginning to wonder what this Phishy label really means. Also, when will dUst decide if I am worthy of having the label removed? I said that I believe in the Holy Father and that I love him and that I am obedient to him, etc. He said that after a period of time I will have it removed. If anyone can help, please just leave a brief message, but I want the thread to stay on topic. Thanks. God bless.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='CatholicforChrist' date='Oct 28 2004, 11:01 PM'] And I think you are treading on infinitely more dangerous ground challenging EVERY PREVIOUS catechism of the Church, including the Roman Catechism, which was promulgated by the infallible authority of the Council of Trent. I also find you treading infinitely dangerous ground by challenging the very Word of God Itself and the commands of God. The CCC is not part of the Word of God (Scripture and Tradition). The Old Testament is (and the Roman Catechism is a sure authority on the matter because it was promulgated by an infallible Council of the Church). [/quote]
I hope you don't feel I like to disagree with you, I don't. Anyways, I'm just going to make on clarification. There are two Divine Laws, and since you're using them to discuss, I want to make this clear. There is the Old Law and the New Law. You keep saying that the New Law contradicts the Old Law. It's probably true, but what's right for one generation isn't necessarily correct for another. The New Law stands over the Old Law.

[qfnol31]

Is this faith and morals? Yes.

It is promulgated by the ordinary universal ecclesiastic magesterium? Yes.

Is it held definatively? Probably so.

If the last one is true, this is taught infallibly.

[CatholicforChrist]

qfnol, no problem with the disagreeing I think it is important to consider the issue and to come to a consensus on what the appropriate belief or course of action is.

Now, I do not believe that the New Law contradicts the Old Law at all. The New Law is a fulfillment of the Old, but the Old is not abrogated upon the coming of the New, i.e., the tenets of the Old Law and teachings and commands of God are not abrogated simply because there is a New Testament. The fact that the Church teaches the death penalty in her catechisms and Councils is enough proof that this is not the case. The Old Testament is not the only source for the death penalty. Look at my whole post. It is Old Testament, New Testament, Church teaching. The reason I am harping on Numbers XXXV is that it is so blatant. In any event, the other sources still stand (as does Numbers XXXV).

Are you claiming that the CCC is infallible in its assessment of the death penalty? If so, the Church has erred (which is impossible) unless someone wants to take the Sedevacantist position (which I would never take). That could not be infallible because it contradicts the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) and previous Church teaching. It is the fallible opinion of the Pope, but, again, that means no disrespect to him. He is the Holy Father, the Head of the Church, but this is a pastoral error in the CCC, not a doctrinal question (and, subsequently, not a doctrinal error).

[Guest Aluigi]

i don't think proposing the alternative contradicts the Bible, because I don't regard the order for a man's blood to be shed if he shed another man's blood as an absolute always and everywhere way of following it. i.e., i believe that is fulfilled if their life is taken away from them by a life prison, their life now belongs to the state. they forfeited the right to their life. the death penalty always must be reserved as the right of the state, and while the CCC says "if not practically inexistant" I say it will always be necessary for some cases based on the resolve of a disordered human will, i.e. there will always be men that are so violent they cannot be contained practically no matter what the technology

[qfnol31]

How would the Church have erred in doing so? She wants it limited, not destroyed.

[qfnol31]

Also, remember infallibly taught does not equal infallibly defined. The reasons why or the way it's said do not factor into the final conclusion, if that helps.

I think this will have to be my last post for now. I'm kinda tired and still have a lot of homework to do. See you guys tomorrow after the opera?

[CatholicforChrist]

Aluigi, I understand your position, but a claim in itself does not denote support. I do not see any evidence or support for this claim in any way. I do not see and Church Father or Doctor who spoke of such a thing. I do not even see a theologian pre-Modernism who would propose such a thing. The Old Testament is too little considered today by most Catholics (probably because of the great protestant influence nowadays), but the concepts of sacrifice and other such matters are so prevalent in the Old Testament. The idea that a blood guilt could be expiated by any means other than bloodshed is foreign to that concept of sacrifice and the consistent sacrificial nature of the Old Testament and Church practice. How would holding someone in jail for life expiate the blood guilt? The very essence of this expiation is that blood is shed in reparation for sins committed, not that the person is simply punished in any way the government sees fit. Blind obedience to the pastoral (fallible) opinions of the Church hierarchy can be very dangerous. What if the faithful acted this way during Arianism or other crises in the Church?

[CatholicforChrist]

Bump to Aluigi

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 29 2004, 12:25 AM'] Very easily. God enforces morality stricter in the Old Covenant. A person who kills another forfeits the right to their own life. If that life can be taken away without shedding blood, it is fine. Are you a Biblical fundamentalist? A Biblical literalist? I shouldn't think so. Taking away someone's life by a life imprisonment is a just punishment. Taking away their life by actually executing them is also a just punishment. [/quote]
Nope.
You take a life you forfeit your own. That will never change.

[CatholicforChrist]

Cmom We agree on something. That is good to know. In any event, Aluigi, can you provide any kind of analysis or proof for this, as I said, from the Fathers or Doctors or any other source pre-Modernism? Thanks.

Edited October 29, 2004 by CatholicforChrist