Execute Them!

[Aloysius]

all teachings of the twenty Ecumenical Councils in matters of faith and morals are infallible and authoritative

[Don John of Austria]

Aloysius I didn't ask you and that isn't what I asked, I asked Cmom.

That isn't intended asa hostile statement I just need CMOM to answer.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 5 2005, 09:43 PM'] exactly, we can disagree on the application of war or the application of the death penalty, but we cannot disagree on the teaching. i.e. every Catholic must believe that the death penalty is the just right of the state, that people who murder forfeit the right to their own life, that anytime a person guilty of murder is executed they are done so justly because that is what justice demands and what they deserve. those are the things we must agree upon, those are the things many Catholics dissent from in their ultra-pacifist anti-death penalty views where they put it on the same level as abortion et cetera.

where we can dissagree is APPLICATION; i.e. you say in the modern world it shouldn't be used that much I say it should be used now more than ever.

we can have a LEGITIMATE diversity of opinion in regards to this application, i.e. it is legitimate for a Catholic to argue that the death penalty still is absolutely necessary and still ought to be used often. [/quote]
But here you're contradicting the Holy Father. He said that it is not just to always use the death penalty when someone commits a murder, and we need to look for better means.

But everyone here disagrees on the teaching itself! Because someone kills someone else DOES NOT mean we can legitimately take their life every time! If that's the case, then the Pope has erred [i]while exercising his Papal authority![/i] and we have a right to say something about it...and this implies the Second Vatican Council has also erred in asking us to give a religious submission of mind and will. I'm very concerned about this logic, and I don't think that it needs to prevail here.

I think that the Pope made it explicit that the death penalty really isn't always just, even when used for the reasons that you have stated. One or the other is correct, I cannot see both.

Also, our disagreements are more along the lines of, "Is the Pope in Evangelium Vitae correct or not," whether implicitly or explicitly. I say, it doesn't matter, we CANNOT say.

This next statement of the Pope disagrees with what you have said about the state having the right to execute all murderers:

[quote]It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: [b]"If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority [i]must[/i] limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".[/b][/quote]

If the bolded part is not him using his office as Pope, I want to know what is. That is definitely the Holy Father using his office not as an opinion, but as a teaching, with other teachings behind it. According to Vatican II, we owe a religious submission of [i]mind[/i] and will.

******************************

I'm very concerned by how often it has been stated that we can say that the Pope was wrong in Evangelium Vitae. Well, then, we are not following the command that has been posted over and over again. It has been done here...

******************************

[quote]So you believe that all acts of Councils are infallable and authorative... you are sure you want to hold to that position. [/quote]

By the way (for Don), teaching does not equal infallible, so your question is really invalid...they are authoritative, regardless of whether or not the infallibilty charism is invoked. This is so often misunderstood that I think it is well within my rights to answer you here because you ask an answer that isn't really even valid.

I believe I also posted earlier from the First Vatican Council that the Pope has jurisdiction that we cannot deny, even when not speaking infallibly. That is an infallible teaching, so whether or not the Second Vatican Council is infallible, we still must follow it. Were this not the case, we could not disagree with it anyways. It may not be infallible, but wow is it authoritative.

*******************************

Lastly, I want to point out that I have not disagreed with a particular case, but the teaching of the death penalty as presented here. I think it contradicts the Holy Father in a grave way.

[MichaelFilo]

You know. If St. Athanasius went about giving into what the pope said as opposed to sticking to constant Catholic teaching on something, we'd have had a period in history when no one would stop the Pope from teaching the Arian heresy, or at least sympathizing with them. St. Athanasius did not give said submission of mind and will, and instead fought for the doctrine that he knew. A life is forfieted whenever one is taken. That is how it is. That is justice. We are to forgive him and have mercy on the one who is to die, but the government must ceaslessly carry out justice.

God bless,
Mikey

[Q the Ninja]

First off I want to mention the difference between public teaching and private belief. We have no idea that St. Athanasius actually disagreed with any public teachings of the Pope.

In fact, I've seen no hard evidence that the Pope was an Arian or even a semi-Arian.

[Aloysius]

you just quoted the Holy Father expressing his opinions about the modern [b]application [/b]of the death penalty.

Catholic Teaching remains secure saying that a person who commits a grave crime deserves execution and the state has the right to execute. therefore, absolutely any time the state executes a person who is guilty of a grave crime, according to Catholic teaching that is a just action. Evangelium Vitae's mention of the death penalty clearly is a comment about its application. i.e., the state shouldn't always apply it, even though it is always just when they do it.

I don't see your argument really.. you admit we can legitimately disagree about the application of the death penalty with JPII however you cite JPII's comments on the application of the death penalty and posit them as papal teaching

[MichaelFilo]

He was with Arian sympathies. Guess why he didn't get canonized (the first ever).

God bless,
Mikey

[Q the Ninja]

[quote]you just quoted the Holy Father expressing his opinions about the modern application of the death penalty.

Catholic Teaching remains secure saying that a person who commits a grave crime deserves execution and the state has the right to execute. therefore, absolutely any time the state executes a person who is guilty of a grave crime, according to Catholic teaching that is a just action. Evangelium Vitae's mention of the death penalty clearly is a comment about its application. i.e., the state shouldn't always apply it, even though it is always just when they do it.

I don't see your argument really.. you admit we can legitimately disagree about the application of the death penalty with JPII however you cite JPII's comments on the application of the death penalty and posit them as papal teaching [/quote]

Unlike what the Revisionists said back when Humanae Vitae was released, Encyclicals ARE NOT JUST OPINION!!!!!

[MichaelFilo]

Wow. Ok, so this is what you are saying. The Pope has singlehandedly contradicted the Catholic teaching on this matter? That must be what you are saying, otherwise you would be saying like, that is the Pope's opinion.

God bless,
Mikey

[Q the Ninja]

No, I'm saying that anyone who doesn't give religious submission of mind and will to Papal teachings has.

How has the Pope contradicted the Faith? I have yet to see it...

[Aloysius]

you need to prove to me how the position you are proposing, that sometimes the state does not have a just right to execute, is consistent with the teachings of the Church for 2000 other years. the encyclical clearly makes a commentary on modern application of the death penalty where you quoted it.

[Q the Ninja]

There can never be the willing of a death of a person. (Especially not killing)...It falls under the idea of the principle of double effect actually. While it is illicit to will the death/killing of a person, it is not illicit for a person to die because of something else. But this thing must be proportional. What the Holy Father has said is that the dignity of the human person outweighs the justice that would follow (or "lesser amount") by imprisoning them for life. Everyone here has said justice is higher, but it's actually the dignity.

That I believe is Catholic doctrine.

[MichaelFilo]

I found a good link. I'd link it, but it refers to JPII as the antipope. OF course, the theology is still good. However, if I need to pull quotes for you, just ask.

God bless,
Mikey

[Aloysius]

"if bloodless means are sufficient"

that's what I really take issue with.
it does not fall under the expertise of the Petrine Office to say that cases are rare if non-existant when the dp is necessary. I take issue and believe that our bloodless capability is about the same as the medieval bloodless capability, so to say bloodless means available is different now is absurd to me and thus has no bearing on the use of the dp.

anyway, yeah, intention does affect whether or not the state administers the execution justly.

however, every guilty criminal that receives the death penalty RECEIVES IT JUSTLY. They deserved it, and thus their execution is just.

A leader, judge, or jury may sin through bloodlust, revenge, and murderous intent, this is true.

[Q the Ninja]

I think that you've now made a crucial distinction.

A person can receive something justly (now disregard intent) but does that mean that the government is still just in giving it?