Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 33 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:14 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6574
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
ForeverFaithful wrote:
So while the phrase inadmissible is distinct from intrinsically wrong.



I would like to see anyone give me an example of something else that is contrary to the "light of the Gospel," and is a "attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person," and is "never admissible" but at the same time is *not* intrinsically wrong.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 1:09 pm 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12091
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
I am on a jury. A conviction carries a mandatory death sentence.

Given this topic, if I vote to convict, am I committing a grave sin under the current Church doctrine?

_________________
Where’er the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s music and laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!
~Hilaire Belloc

Semper Fi!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 6:32 pm 
Offline
Corporate Minion Moderator
Corporate Minion Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 7:18 pm
Posts: 17812
Location: Just visiting this planet.
Religion: Finally Catholic!
Church Affiliations: Legion of Mary, SVdP
You DO know that scenario has been impossible in the United States ever since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in the Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) decision, right?

_________________
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." --Douglas Adams

Image

Commit to the Image

formerly "ghall512"--Thanks for the idea, arkcatholic! :clap:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Fri Aug 10, 2018 11:04 pm 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12091
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
OK, then, if I am in a situation where the jury recommends a sentence and recommends death, then how do I stand?

_________________
Where’er the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s music and laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!
~Hilaire Belloc

Semper Fi!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:54 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7637
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
Highlander wrote:
the current Church doctrine

:shock:

_________________
Prayers,
Jack3
South Indian Eastern Catholic teenager.

"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 7:49 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:22 pm
Posts: 1497
Location: Canada
Religion: la foi Catholique
Church Affiliations: K of C 4th Degree
Alexandros wrote:
ForeverFaithful wrote:
So while the phrase inadmissible is distinct from intrinsically wrong.



I would like to see anyone give me an example of something else that is contrary to the "light of the Gospel," and is a "attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person," and is "never admissible" but at the same time is *not* intrinsically wrong.


This is the only time in the entire CCC that the phrase inadmissible is used.

It's not that this is the obvious reading; it's that it's the only reading that can accommodate Church doctrine

_________________
In Te speravi, Domine: dixi: Tu es Deus meus, in manibus Tuis tempora mea.
Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak: heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled.
All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
Tiber swim team '13


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2018 9:32 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:36 am
Posts: 7637
Location: India
Religion: Syro Malabar Christian
ForeverFaithful wrote:

It's not that this is the obvious reading; it's that it's the only reading that can accommodate Church doctrine

Perhaps the only reading that can accommodate Church doctrine is not the intended reading. :fyi:

The source quoted in the current form of the paragraph wrote:
Along these same lines, I would like now to bring up a subject that ought to find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church a more adequate and coherent treatment [the erstwhile content was not adequate and coherent enough] in the light of these expressed aims. I am speaking of the death penalty. This issue cannot be reduced to a mere résumé of traditional teaching [but a novelty must be cooked up?] without taking into account not only the doctrine as it has developed in the teaching of recent Popes [recent Popes, ancient Popes, saints], but also the change in the awareness of the Christian people [pace whatever Donum Veritatis had to say about public opinion] which rejects an attitude of complacency before a punishment deeply injurious of human dignity.

It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane [inhumane - the initial French translation of the text said "inhumane" instead of "inadmissible". While the translation was inaccurate, Pope Francis does believe that death penalty is inhumane] measure that, regardless of how it is carried out [this language comes very close to intrinsic evil], abases human dignity. It is per se [again, this language comes very close to intrinsic evil] contrary to the Gospel, because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator and of which – ultimately – only God is the true judge and guarantor. No man, “not even a murderer, loses his personal dignity” (Letter to the President of the International Commission against the Death Penalty, 20 March 2015), because God is a Father who always awaits the return of his children [death penalty is contrary to the Gospel because God is a Father who always awaits the return of his children? I find this, considered in itself, to be a non sequitur] who, knowing that they have made mistakes, ask for forgiveness and begin a new life. No one ought to be deprived not only of life, but also of the chance for a moral and existential redemption that in turn can benefit the community.

In past centuries, when means of defence were scarce and society had yet to develop and mature as it has [Doom's remark of first-world centered analysis do make sense to me], recourse to the death penalty appeared to be the logical consequence of the correct application of justice. Sadly, even in the Papal States recourse was had to this extreme and inhumane remedy that ignored the primacy of mercy over justice. Let us take responsibility for the past and recognize that the imposition of the death penalty was dictated by a mentality more legalistic than Christian [an allegation against his predecessors]. Concern for preserving power and material wealth [again] led to an over-estimation of the value of the law and prevented a deeper understanding of the Gospel. Nowadays, however, were we to remain neutral before the new demands of upholding personal dignity, we would be even more guilty.

Here we are not in any way contradicting past teaching [there is no contradiction between "not excluded" and "per se contrary to the Gospel regardless of how it is carried out"], for the defence of the dignity of human life from the first moment of conception to natural death has been taught by the Church consistently and authoritatively. Yet the harmonious development of doctrine demands that we cease to defend arguments that now appear clearly contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth . Indeed, as Saint Vincent of Lérins pointed out, “Some may say: Shall there be no progress of religion in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For who is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it?” (Commonitorium, 23.1; PL 50) [cherry picking, cherry picking! even a mere cursory glance at the commonotorium reveals that there are qualifiers!]. It is necessary [necessary], therefore, to reaffirm that no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.

_________________
Prayers,
Jack3
South Indian Eastern Catholic teenager.

"May our tongues proclaim Your truth. May Your Cross be a protection for us as we let our tongues be turned into new harps and sing hymns with fiery lips"

-From the introduction to Our Father, "On the feasts of the Lord and other important feasts", Syro Malabar rite


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Mon Aug 13, 2018 8:51 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6574
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
ForeverFaithful wrote:
Alexandros wrote:
ForeverFaithful wrote:
So while the phrase inadmissible is distinct from intrinsically wrong.



I would like to see anyone give me an example of something else that is contrary to the "light of the Gospel," and is a "attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person," and is "never admissible" but at the same time is *not* intrinsically wrong.


This is the only time in the entire CCC that the phrase inadmissible is used.

It's not that this is the obvious reading; it's that it's the only reading that can accommodate Church doctrine


“Inadmissible,” even in the Italian, is pretty clear. There is no ambiguity with this word and it must be read in context.

But, if it’s true that Francis is not saying the death penalty is intrinsically wrong, then what other item is contrary to the "light of the Gospel," and is a "attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person," and is "never admissible" but at the same time is *not* intrinsically wrong?


Secondly, the paragraph does not accommodate Church doctrine for several reasons:


“Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person’, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.


If it's inadmissible and we should work for its abolition, then this harms the virtue of justice and the natural law.

Let's play pretend and act like the paragraph really does not intend to say the death penalty is intrinsically wrong – yet we can clearly see it seeks to stop it completely. This is also erroneous. Why? Because natural law and justice. You cannot seek to ban the death penalty and pretend that natural law will change according to your whim. Certain crimes demand certain punishments and abolishing the death penalty on “prudence” or for the “safety of society” alone does not change law as authored by God. If it doesn’t say the death penalty is intrinsically wrong, then one must at least admit it denies the fulfillment of natural law and justice as authored by God, because certain crimes need proper justice and punishment.

So there is really two issues here, both do not accommodate Church teaching.


Now, let’s take a look at the context of where these words originate by looking at Pope Francis himself from last year:

Quote:
“It must be strongly confirmed that condemning a person to the death penalty is an inhumane measure that humiliates, in any way it is pursued, human dignity.”
The death penalty, he said, “is in itself contrary to the Gospel because it is voluntarily decided to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of which God only in the final analysis is the true judge and guarantor.”
….

He noted that, “unfortunately,” even the papal state at times adopted this “extreme and inhumane means” of punishment, “neglecting the primacy of mercy and justice.”
Francis stressed that God is a Father “who always waits for the return of the son who, knowing he has erred, asks forgiveness and begins a new life.”
“No one, therefore, can have their life taken from them, nor the possibility of a moral and existential redemption that goes back in favor of the community.”
“Let us take responsibility for the past, and let us recognize that these means were dictated by a more legalistic mentality than Christian,” he said.





Pope Francis said that “harmonious development of doctrine” requires that new treatments on the death penalty “leave out positions in defense of arguments which now appear decisively contrary to the new understanding of Christian truth. ... It is necessary to reiterate that, no matter how serious the crime committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attempt against the inviolability and dignity of the person.”


http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/po ... man-dignit

So, the death penalty is the following:

Contrary to the Gospel.
Inhumane.
Violates human dignity.
Can only be done by God: “…God only in the final analysis is the true judge and guarantor.”
Not Christian: ”…dictated by a more legalistic mentality than Christian…”
Inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime.

Yet, at the same time, it is not intrinsically wrong.
That’s pretty bizarre.

Even if we put on our Jimmy Akin hats and strain every part of our brain in a mental gymnastics feat that earns 12 gold medals at the International Catholic Apologists Games, we are still left with the issue that banning it completely is still contrary to natural law and justice as authored by God.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 7:52 am 
Offline
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2018 5:45 pm
Posts: 42
Location: USA
Religion: Catholic
gherkin wrote:
Yes, that quotation is exactly right.

Why is Pope Francis doing so many dunderheaded (or worse) things? I don't know. But I do know that dwelling on it and spending time and energy being "bothered" by it is unproductive or worse. Pray for the Pope, and otherwise forget about him.



St. Pope Pius X warned us about modernism coming into the church, Pope Leo XIII did as well. We can only pray that he starts to see tradition as important instead of what he has called in the past "Silly" as he continues to change things in the church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 9:00 am 
Offline
Journeyman
Journeyman
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:22 pm
Posts: 1497
Location: Canada
Religion: la foi Catholique
Church Affiliations: K of C 4th Degree
Alexandros wrote:

“Inadmissible,” even in the Italian, is pretty clear. There is no ambiguity with this word and it must be read in context.
Quote:

There is actually considerable ambiguity. If it really meant intrinsically evil, then the words intrinsically evil would have been used, not "inadmissible". Further, the French CCC would not have been changed from inhumane to inadmissible unless inadmissible was an important choice of words.

In the 8th paragraph of the letter to the Bishops on the revision, Cardinal Ladaria explains how it was acceptable to use capital punishment at other times. Consequently, it could not be ever justified.

Quote:
But, if it’s true that Francis is not saying the death penalty is intrinsically wrong, then what other item is contrary to the "light of the Gospel," and is a "attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person," and is "never admissible" but at the same time is *not* intrinsically wrong?


Slavery. We'd have no problem saying any of that about slavery, but as Cardinal Dulles point out slavery has not been condemned as an intrinsic evil.

I think we both agree that "in light of the Gospel" it would be an "attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" to engage in debt servitude today on account of the plenty of alternative means of recompense available to us. This does not mean debt servitude is always wrong or that there is no circumstance in which it can be justified. Rather it is "never admissible" today on account of alternatives we have available.

Because there are now alternatives that are adequate we can not without attacking the dignity of the debtor impose servitude on them, since it would be a deliberate choice to reduce them to slavery rather than a contingent economic necessity.

Quote:
If it's inadmissible and we should work for its abolition, then this harms the virtue of justice and the natural law.


That may be so, but it's also not the case that any Catholic has to support the practice of the death penalty.

Dr. Feser and Dr. Bessette retrun again and again to the perfectly legimtate position within Catholic thought at least since Pope Nicolaus I that while the death penalty is not unjust, it should be applied rarely if ever. We're not Kantians who think that ever capital crime entails the exercising of the death penalty. Considerations of mercy, or perhaps praticalities of implementing it can lead a Catholic to make the prudential judgment to oppose the application of capital punishment at this time and in this place.

You and I can disagree with such judgements, and Dr. Feser and Dr. Bessette explain why such judgments from the Holy Father are not binding in themselves, but they are legitimate opinions for Catholics to hold.


Now I'm not going to bother with other things Pope Francis said because what we're talking about is CCC 2267.


Now CCC 2267 is either

(a) saying that capital punishment is intrisically evil, in which case it can not be accpeted.

(b) making in strong language a prudential judgment that there are currently no circumstances where capital punishment is the appropriate response. This is really the only way I would argue to understand the pre-amble which makes it abundantly clear that this has not always been the case, additionally the CDF letter which specifically notes the acceptablity of capital punishment before which would be impossible if (a) was the proper reading.

(c) Incoherent. In which case as Dr. John Joy noted at the Josias (b) is the only reading we can take.



My point isn't that there is not a case for (a) only that because if "inadmissible" truly meant "intrisically evil" both the new CCC 2267 and the Letter to the CDF become incoherent, and consequently one must interpret it as (b)

_________________
In Te speravi, Domine: dixi: Tu es Deus meus, in manibus Tuis tempora mea.
Have mercy on me, O Lord, for I am weak: heal me, O Lord, for my bones are troubled.
All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out.
Tiber swim team '13


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 11:25 am 
Offline
The Exterminator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2005 9:44 pm
Posts: 27120
Location: The Old Forest
Religion: Númenórean Catholic
Incoherent is the new norm, I don't see why it should be ruled out Prima facie.

A seems most likely to me. This isn't the first time he has said such things. If you go with b then his continuing narrative is incoherent. A is not only the only interpretation that makes sense, it's the only one that is consistent with prior comments.

_________________
This is absurd.

- Justice Scalia, dissent, King v. Burwell.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Tue Aug 14, 2018 12:14 pm 
Offline
There Can Be Only One
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 12091
Location: Nuevo Mexico
Religion: Catholic
As a relatively ignorant bystander, it seems to me that the new Papacy exhibits three characteristics.

1. Feelings over precise formulations.

2. Relatively impulsive utterances rather than taking pause to create reasoned, consistent statements.

3. A sense that modernity must be accommodated ... because modernity is reality.

_________________
Where’er the Catholic sun doth shine,
There’s music and laughter and good red wine.
At least I’ve always found it so.
Benedicamus Domino!
~Hilaire Belloc

Semper Fi!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Change of the Catechism in regards to the death penalty
PostPosted: Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:16 pm 
Offline
Paladin
Paladin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2003 2:12 am
Posts: 6574
Location: Filii Tonitrui
Religion: Catholic
I moved the debate/discussion to the Lyceum, FYI.

_________________
-Alexander
"The proof of love is to suffer for the one you love." -St. Pio


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 33 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


Jump to: