The following comes from a July 14 Diocese of San Diego news release:
The Most Rev. Robert McElroy, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego, today issued the following statement about Props. 62 and 66, which deal with the state’s death penalty:
“This fall, voters in California will be asked to decide on two propositions regarding the death penalty. Proposition 62, which would eliminate the death penalty in California and Proposition 66, which would expedite the death penalty process and make it easier to carry out executions.
“The Catholic Bishops of California are strongly united in opposing the death penalty and are urging voters to join us in supporting Proposition 62 and opposing Proposition 66.
“State sponsored killing perpetuates the very cycle of violence that it professes to end. It applies the ultimate sanction of death in a manner that is racially and economically biased. Most chillingly of all, in recent years more than 100 individuals on death row in the United States have been released from prison because they were innocent of the crime for which they were convicted; thus even here in America the death penalty inevitably brings with it the reality of killing innocent people.
“For us as Catholics, there could be few greater contradictions to God’s mercy than to have California reaffirm or even increase the use of the death penalty in this Year of Mercy. It is essential that we, as a society, follow the counsel of Pope Francis to guarantee vigorously the security of our citizens, but to do so in a manner designed to foster respect for human life rather than to undercut it.
And he’s not retirement-eligible for nigh on 13 years. Ugh!
Sorry, McElroy, I’m not listening to you because you’re wrong.
When you say things like, “State sponsored killing perpetuates the very cycle of violence that it professes to end,” and, “It applies the ultimate sanction of death in a manner that is racially and economically biased,” it shows you don’t know what you’re talking about; you have no credibility and should not be listened to.
Keep the death penalty in California and make America great again by electing Trump as President.
You won’t listen to a member of the Magisterium? Check out what Our Lord Himself says about that when he addressed the Apostles into whose offices our bishops and the Holy Father now assume: “He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.” (Luke 10:16) Listen to the Magisterium. Respect life. Vote Yes on 62, No on 66!
jon, it’s because McElroy is speaking outside of magisterial competence and doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He enjoys no privileged perspective in the matter of the appropriate application of the death penalty.
He’s wrong that it perpetuates a cycle of violence. He’s wrong that it is racist.
He’s a leftist Francisbishop who’s shooting his mouth off for a left-wing cause that is not obligatory for Catholics to support and is quite foolish to support besides. He’s misusing his episcopal authority.
Same thing applies when bishops call for increasing the minimum wage. They have no privileged perspective in such a matter, so Catholics are free to disregard whatever they say.
I am disregarding McElroy’s ignorant,…
Because you’re disagreeing with a bishop who happens to be in communion on this issue with the Holy Father and the rest of the bishops in the universal Church, you are disregarding and calling ignorant THE ENTIRE MAGISTERIUM. Now, on whom should a regular Catholic hang his hat on—on you? or on the anointed ministers of the Church. I say the latter. I am on more stable ground by joining them on this, not by joining dissenters.
Catholics would do well to hang their hat on Scripture, which in both the Old Testament and New Testament teaches the validity of capital punishment.
Catholics would do well to hang their hat on the Church’s Tradition, which has definitively upheld the moral legitimacy of the death penalty for two millennia.
No pope nor bishop nor council can alter Scripture nor contradict Tradition, for they serve both; they are not masters.
This is where Sawyer you need to be reminded of Catholic dogma concerning the Magisterium. The Magisterium is the guardian of the deposit of faith, applying the revelation from Scripture and Tradition to the needs of the present. When they teach on matters of faith and morals such as the death penalty, a faithful Catholic believes that they have considered Scripture and Tradition. To disbelieve this demonstrates a lack of faith and is most likely sinful.
You say the Bible teach the validity of the death penalty. Well, yeah, in the time of both testaments, it would be valid. BUT NOT IN OUR TIME, as judged by the recent popes. The third font of morality—namely, the circumstances—has changed as judged by the Magisterium, and…
therefore the use of the death penalty is no longer morally correct in our time. The change in circumstance is that there are now other bloodless means to protect society.
You say Tradition upheld the legitimacy of the same for two millenia. Here is where your blindspot is. THE traditional Catholic principle on this is not “death penalty for capital crimes.” WRONG. The traditional principle is that ONLY when there are no other practicable means to protect society can there be recourse to the death penalty; only then is its use valid, in other words. The Catechism states this principle plainly. The use of the death penalty WAS VALID prior to the development in the penal system of other means to protect society. JP2 judged that…
the time was right to proclaim it so. Listen to the Magisterium. Respect life! Yes on 62, No on 66!
No, jon: the personal opinion that bloodless means suffice is not and can never be a magisterial teaching. As you recognize, that personal opinion concerns an evaluation of historical and cultural circumstances under which the death penalty is applied. That evaluation is a matter of prudence, not a matter of faith, and therefore cannot be the subject of magisterial teaching.
You are wrong.
Sawyer, I think you’re still confused. “Bloodless means” as you call it is the reality, the circumstance, the fact– it is the basis for the papal judgment that death penalty be abolished. The existence in our time of “bloodless means” is not the magisterial teaching. The teaching is the abolition of the death penalty.
Yes, and here is a new site recommended by church militant folks:
http://www.Catholics4Trump.com
God bless America.
“State sponsored killing…!” What the heck does he think abortion is!!! And they are innocent lives too!
If black males commit the majority of crimes which in the course of an unbiased application of justice under present jurisprudence would call for the death penalty, then it follows that the majority of executions would be of black males. How is this racist, Excellency? At least on that score, you sir, are wrong.
Because many studies have shown that black men are far more likely to receive a sentence of death than white men who committed the same crime. Other studies show that black men are far more likely to be wrongly convicted of capital crimes than white men. So the Bishop is quite correct.
Show me the “many” studies, YFC, before claiming them to be true. If you can do that, you will have made a point in favor of the need for even-handed justice (and this would per force be relevant to all criminal prosecution). But uneven justice, and the morality of capital punishment, are two separate issues, confused by his Excellency.
I agree, Dan: let YFC mention the specific studies he has in mind, and let us subject them to scrutiny.
“Bp. Robert McElroy (D, CA), issued the following statement today about [fill in the blank]…”
Thanks a lot Pope Francis for giving the Diocese of San Diego such a politician instead of a shepherd. Can we send McElroy back to San Francisco? Oh no, Archbishop Cordileone is probably very happy to be rid of him. VOTE NO ON PROP 62 AND YES ON PROP 66. McElroy, I suggest that you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then concentrate your energies on making sure that your flock do the same. But, please do not try to change any of the language. The words were carefully chosen for the universal Church. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered!!!
And so is the homosexual inclination objectively disordered.
And as for the slaughter of the unborn? Any mention of that by the bishops? When was the last execution of a convict on Death Row? The execution of the unborn takes place daily, many many times. Unborn lives matter.
All lives matter.
People, the Church urges all Catholics to adhere with religious submission of mind and will to the expressed authentic teachings of the Pope and the bishops (Lumen Gentium 25). The Church does not allow dissent on matters of faith and morals, and the teaching on the death penalty does fall under morality for it concerns the dignity of human life. It is your responsibility as good Catholics to discern the will of God in the Magisterial teaching, not to express publicly and scandalously one’s dissent.
Check out Fr. Robert Levis’ piece on “Dissent In the Church”:
“In brief and in summary, when those who have been vested with divine
authority teach in matters of faith and morals and discipline, a good
Catholic obeys. He may…
“not like it, he may detest it, but he assents, he obeys. He may have some question, like Mary herself at the Annunciation, but he obeys. There is no dissent, no disobedience, no waffling in the good Catholic.”
https://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/DISCHUR.TXT
By the way, to get the full treatment on how the CDF 2004 Letter by Ratzinger called (Worthiness To Receive), check out my comment on the article on this subject entitled “Catholic bishops endore initiative.” Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
jon, legitimate diversity of opinion is not dissent. Ratzinger wrote that being at odds with the Holy Father regarding the application of the death penalty may be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics.
He could not have written that if it were sinful to differ with the Holy Father about the death penalty. If being at odds on that matter were dissent, it would be sinful. But since it is merely a legitimate diversity of opinion, it is not sinful dissent.
You may believe your foolishness about abolishing the death penalty, as may the recent popes and the CA bishops. But do not impose it as obligatory for all Catholics. No pope has said that it is obligatory nor have the CA bishops. They cannot, for the death penalty is…
Sawyer, sorry to have to inform you, but the Magisterium’s teaching on the death penalty is most definitely binding, as I have repeated many times. The reason I must insist on this is because of Lumen Gentium 25, a Dogmatic Constitution, one of the highest forms of documents in the Church. The document OBLIGES Catholics to adhere to the solemn teachings of the Magisterium. It is NOT I whom am imposing this upon you all. It is the Church through Lumen Gentium. Repent people.
jon, a prudential judgment about the application of the death penalty is not a solemn judgment.
prudential judgment = personal opinion.
Popes can have their personal opinions, they are free to express their personal opinions.
Catholics are not bound by their personal opinions.
When the Holy Father delivers a homily, delivers an official speech, and writes an official papal document, THESE are authentic Magisterial teachings which must be adhered to. These are not personal opinions of his because of the nature of the instrument that the teachings are used. These are BINDING.
However, press conferences on an airplane, sleep-talking, chats over afternoon tea with Cardinal Sarah express personal opinion. These are not biding.
The popes’ teachings calling for an end to the death penalty are binding because they were expressed officially in a formal way (speeches, homilies, official documents).
As for the opinion on whether or not there “is” a legitimate diversity of opinion, I have treated that in the article “California bishops endorse.” Basically folks, as long as there are other means to protect society without having to kill a capital criminal (and presently there are), there is NO legitimacy in the opinion that we can therefore kill criminals. NO legitimacy in that opinion. The CDF Letter itself doesn’t say that there “is” a legitimate diversity of opinion. It does not!
No, jon, the assertion that bloodless means suffice is the opinion that is disputed.
You cannot say that bloodless means suffice is binding doctrine; that’s the very personal opinion that is subject to diversity of opinion.
The CDF letter does say that there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion regarding war and the death penalty. Yes it does!
Wrong again, Sawyer. Please do read the CDF Letter more carefully because what you’re saying is unsupported by the very document you cite. The CDF Letter DOES NOT SAY that “bloodless means” is what is “subject to diversity of opinion.” WRONG! The document plainly says that there “may be” (very hypothetical, it’s not ‘can be’ but “may be”) a “legitimate diversity” of opinion about “applying the death penalty.” There is NO LEGITIMATE DIVERSITY of opinion on applying the death penalty because of the FACT that the penal system has means to protect society without recourse to killing. The “bloodless means” you refer to is FACT, it is the reality, it is NOT OPINION.
Moreover, your insistence that “may be” means…
“can be” is still wrong. The two words do not entirely mean the same. The former expresses a hypothetical possibility (“there may be”) whereas the latter (“there can be”) expresses permission. Why would the Holy Father call for the abolition of something when there “can be” legitimate diverse opinions on it. WRONG.
Moreover Sawyer, the fact that all three recent popes called for the ABOLITION of the death penalty, which is a binding teaching per Lumen Gentium 25, indicates that at the present there is no legitimacy in the opinion that it is moral to kill criminals. The Holy Fathers would not have called for its abolition, thereby making it binding, if in fact society CANNOT be protected without recourse to the death penalty.
Another thing: if you can misinterpret the Church’s phrase “intrinsic disorder” SO GROSSLY, how can we now trust you in your “interpretation” of the CDF Letter?
“Well done!” Pope Benedict XVI to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo when she presented to the Holy Father a copy of the new law outlawing the death penalty in the Philippines, June 26, 2006.
Sawyer – it is always best to have the Magisterium ‘explained’ by Anonymous (Paid) Homosex Trolls, too craven to even identify themselves or their positions, when they trash the Church.
After all – who can you trust, if not an ‘anonymous’ homosex ‘Johnny Troll’, paid or unpaid?
Now, concerning this issue of the sin of dissent. It is very false to believe that every other kind of dissent is a sin and forbidden EXCEPT for dissent on the death penalty. This is what folks like Sawyer would have us believe. People, the CDF Letter does not excuse dissent. The main message of the CDF document is that dissent from the Holy Father’s judgment on the death penalty is not the same transgression as abortion which is an intrinsic evil. It is for that reason that dissenters on this issue can continue to receive Communion, not because there “is” a legitimate diversity of opinion. Dissent on this issue remains a sin, a transgression.
Part Two of the recent article in defense of Catholics supporting the death penalty has been published:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4939/why_the_death_penalty_is_still_necessary.aspx
Among the many reasons why capital punishment ought to be preserved (all of which we set out at length in our forthcoming book), the most fundamental one is that for extremely heinous crimes, no lesser punishment could possibly respect this Catholic principle that a punishment ought to be proportional to the offense. We devote the remainder of this article to developing this point.
Sorry Sawyer, but the conclusion of this article dissents from the expressed Magisterium of John Paul II, of Benedict, and the present Holy Father and all the bishops united with him. JP2 was very clear in his homily all the way back from 1999 in Missiouri “that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, EVEN IN THE CASE of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.”
So, folks, the question for you is: whom are you to believe? Are you to believe the anointed shepherds of the Church who are THE authentic teachers of Scripture and Tradition for our needs? Or are you to believe those who sin by audaciously dissenting…
from the plain teaching of the Magisterium? Why risk the salvation of your souls by going against those whom Our Lord has chosen to lead His Church? Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
The abolitionists’ stance relies COMPLETELY upon having CERTAINTY that the prudential judgment that bloodless means are sufficient holds ALWAYS AND IN EVERY CASE. The abolitionists CANNOT have that certainty because they CANNOT PREDICT THE FUTURE. Therefore the prudential judgment that is the SOLE BASIS for the abolitionist argument is an UNCERTAIN PREMISE, and from an uncertain premise one may NOT deduce a certain conclusion.
No one can be certain that capital punishment will never be necessary in the future. Therefore, capital punishment should not be abolished.
I’m afraid Sawyer’s still has a faulty understanding of the position of the recent popes. Sawyer, in order to make a more effective refutation, you must fully understand the other’s POV. The Magisterial position is that bloodless means are NOW PRESENT, they are the present reality and fact. The present penal system has the capacity to contain a capital criminal and protect society: this is not opinion, this is NOT PREMISE. This is fact. High Maximum security prisons are fact, not an uncertainly, not a premise. It is based on that reality that JP2 has made his judgment that capital punishment is now cruel and unncessary. And this is binding.
Why don’t you educate us by relating a scenario in which capital punishment…
“may” be necessary in the future, since this is your primary concern. Go ahead. Tell us.
Scenario: a death row inmate escapes prison by murdering guards and commits more murders on the lam.
Lest you think that cannot happen in present-day America, this past week a murder suspect facing the death penalty in Florida escaped from court and was on the run. So much for America’s flawlessly secure penal system. Thank goodness the suspect didn’t murder again while escaped.
But it proves that the prison system is not as secure as you believe it is, jon.
One example is sufficient to prove you wrong. You are wrong.
What? You’ll say, “Oh, well the prison system will be secure next time.” That’s my point: you cannot know that, and since you cannot know that you cannot conclude that bloodless means will always be…
Sawyer: The 2004 CDF Letter calls for “legitimate” opinion for applying the death penalty. Your opinion that you’ve just shared here is not valid, not legitimate, for at least two reasons.
1) Firstly, the most prudent way to address the scenario you mention is to strengthen and buttress the prison and penal system—NOT to cling to this rotting relic of the culture of death. To cling to it, killing a human being, is morally wrong and disproportionate to address a problem you have described. You’re saying basically that we should continue on kill human beings because of a flaw in the system that most like can be addressed without resorting to killing. ILLIGITIMATE!
2) Secondly, the rate of prison escapes have actually…
been GOING DOWN in the US. According to a recent newsreport, Camille G. Camp, co-president of the Criminal Justice Institute, claims that the rate of prison escapes in the US have actually been going down. Plus, Martin Horn, a professor of corrections at John Jay College of Criminal Justice says that escapes from High Maximum prisons where most of the most dangerous capital criminals are contained ARE RARE! U.S. prisons, he said, “may not do a great job on everything, but they do a pretty good job of holding on to the prisoners.”
3) So based on the learned opinions of at least two experts above, not simply on one or two instances of escapes, your opinion in favor of applying the death penalty IS ILLIGITIMATE.
As a matter of absolute Church law, I don’t think anyone, including the Present Pope, claims that the Death Penalty should be and forever abolished.
The cases revolve around a number of issues including:
Are we ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN that the person so sentanced committed the crime in the first place?
Are there other methods available to prevent future crime?
Are there ways to bring the accused and convicted into the mercy of God so as to remand his sentence to the Lord himself?
Given all the instances, methods, and ministries available to us, I conclude that the Death Penalty in the United States violates Catholic Church Law and Doctrine.
If no one claims the death penalty should be forever abolished, then why are the California bishops advocating abolishing the death penalty?
The initiative would not temporarily suspend the death penalty; it would abolish it.
As I have stated, the death penalty should remain legal and be prudently and judiciously applied. To abolish it is to assume that it will never be necessary to use.
I’m glad you agree with me, YFC, even if you don’t quite realize it yet.
You cannot say that the death penalty violates Catholic doctrine because it is perennially valid in principle. You can only judge that in a particular case it would be an immoral or moral application.
The California Bishops aren’t calling for it to be forever abolished, they are calling for it to be abolished in California – and they are not calling for those mechamisns that would prevent it being reinstated if necessary. You are a smart guy, clearly you get the differences.
An ACT can be immoral within a particular context. The California Bishops are teaching that in the context of California in 2016, the death penalt is immoral. We are not on some deserted island where there are no prisons, and a sentence of death might be required in order to prevent the murder of the rest of the islanders. We are in a modern society, with racial and other faults, which sometimes puts to death innocent people, and which can incarcerate for life…
But why go through the legislative process to abolish it when abolishing it isn’t necessary and when — as you admit — it could and perhaps might need to be reinstated?
Why not simply resort to using the death penalty only when it is moral to do so but keeping it as a legal option? Why not fix the alleged injustices in the penal system?
I think the answer is that the bishops of the US desperately want some sort of legislative victory in America to assuage their consciences and boost morale, and they’ve decided that abolishing capital punishment is likely to give them that victory even though it’s not at all required by Catholic faith.
Furthermore, if capital punishment were abolished and a case arose in which it would be moral and necessary to execute someone, the state would be prohibited by law from doing so. Nor could it reinstate capital punishment in order to execute that person because the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws.
So the wisest, most prudent stance is to keep capital punishment as a legal option — not to abolish it — and to implement it prudently and judiciously, which will end up being rarely under current circumstances.
Abolishing capital punishment isn’t a wise course of action at all from a long-term standpoint.
Rather than continue to go on and on about this in a futile exchange, I sent the following dubia to the California Catholic Conference:
Dubium: Whether a Catholic is required by Catholic faith to support abolishing the death penalty.
Dubium: Whether it is forbidden or sinful for a Catholic to oppose abolishing the death penalty.
I will share any answers I receive in a current article’s message thread about capital punishment.
Right. A dubium was presented by Cardinal McCarrick to the CDF back in 2004. The response was this 2004 CDF Letter. The problem is not the response, but the stubborness of heart of some folks who refuse to read it objectively and with docility. A person “may” ask, and ask, and ask, and ask again, hoping for the answer he wants to hear. The California bishops would be the right folks to ask, especially when there are these two propositions on the ballot, and when they have already articulated a position on them. Good Luck!
I think you and YFC are afraid the responses will be “negative”.
Then your whole argument will fall apart.
Note that the California bishops have not stated in any of their releases that it is obligatory for Catholics to support abolishing the death penalty, only that the bishops are supporting efforts to abolish it. I suspect that is because the bishops know — as I have argued — that Catholics may (they are permitted to) oppose abolishing the death penalty and may (they are permitted to) support its continued use without incurring sin.
That was Ratzinger’s clarification in the CDF letter that jon misinterprets.
Sawyer, if you were intellectually honest, it took awhile to convince you of the error in your interpretation of the CHurch’s use of the phrase “intrinsically disordered.” If you can be so grossly wrong about something like that, how can you assure your readers that you are not wrong about your interpretation of the CDF Letter? Also, me? afraid that the response will be “negative”? That comment reveals that you really don’t know where I am coming from. I about defending the Magisterium and the truth. If the Magisterium says “yea” or “nea,” I give my assent. I am not here to win an “argument.” I am here to defend the Church! Again, you’re wrong.
Besides, it is manifestly wrong to dissent on an expressed magisterial teaching of the Church. It is a sin. The level of sin depends on the issue at hand. This has been dealt with by Fr. Robert Levis in his piece called “Dissent In The Church.” Link is below.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/DISCHUR.TXT
I committed no error in that message thread, and you convinced me of no such thing, jon. You’re lying about that. I interpreted “intrinsically disordered” correctly and deduced from it correctly.
If you will be dishonest in dialogue I will ignore you.
It is proven in that thread, Sawyer, that you were interpreting “intrinsically disordered” in a psychologica/psychiatric way as pertaining to the person. In the end you were compelled to admit your error in your comment dated July 20 at 10:07am by saying, “I don’t say the Church teaches that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, but I say that homosexuality is a psychological disorder.”
FYI: You’re debating Trolls.
Sawyer, you’re debating trolls.
So Saywer, if the CDF Letter does give permission for Catholics to dissent, then does that mean that Joseph Ratzinger has contradicted himself? As Cardinal he says, “Ok, everyone can have a legitimate diversity of opinon.” And then as Pope he says, “Ok, you must now all abolish the death penalty.” Is THAT your position? That Ratzinger has contradicted himself?
Or do you mean that Ratzinger has changed his mind?
Inform us here. Please.
No contradiction because no pope has stated that the death penalty must be abolished. No pope could teach that, for it would contradict Catholic Tradition.
Popes have expressed personal desires that the death penalty’s use be curtailed, even to the point of abolishing it, but that is not the same as authoritatively teaching that it must be abolished. No pope can ever teach such a thing authoritatively even though he might advocate for it personally.
Sawyer says no pope has stated that the death penalty must be abolished: JP2, and Benedict, and Francis have said it. Read it:
“Dear brothers and sisters, the time has come to banish once and for all from the continent every attack against life. No more violence, terrorism and drug-trafficking! No more torture or other forms of abuse! There must be an end to the unnecessary recourse to the death penalty! No more exploitation of the weak, racial discrimination or ghettoes of poverty! Never again!” —Pope John Paul II’s homily at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City on Saturday, 23 January 1999. Listen to the living Magisterium! Respect life!
The questions themselves are dubious.
Because the answers are already clear. Catholics are obligated to oppose the penalty of death when other means are available. Period.
I also sent the same dubia to the USCCB.
I am intellectually honest; I will share any responses I receive.
What a divisive bishop. If he is going to make public proclamations they should echo the teachings of The Church on the subject. The Church teaching is that the punishment for a person who commits crime is a matter of prudential judgement.
We are under attack by radical Mohammedans as we saw in San Bernardino. I will vote to keep the death penalty, but realize cultural Marxism is winning the war. Bishop McElroy probably just wants to distract from the terrifying Euthanasia bill that started June 8, 2016. Not to mention abortion on demand right until birth. What next in the humanist ratchet of social justice agenda? Probably Eugenics for small infants.
US Catholic Bishops’ Statement on Capital Punishment
November 1980
“We recognize that many citizens may believe that capital punishment should be maintained as an integral part of our society’s response to the evils of crime, nor is this position incompatible with Catholic tradition.”
That encapsulates all I’ve ever said on this topic, and it increases my optimism that responses to my very specific dubia sent to the CA bishops and the USCCB will either be “negative” or evasive.
jon might claim that the 1980 statement is before JPII’s encyclical and the CCC, but the arguments advanced by the US bishops are the same as JPII’s prudential argument. So the conclusion cannot be different: supporting the death penalty is not…
…supporting the death penalty is not incompatible with Catholic Tradition. Straight from the US bishops’ statement.
That’s what I’ve been arguing all along.
The bishops, when pressed to be specific, must admit that Catholics may support the death penalty’s existence in law. That’s because the death penalty is perennially valid in principle.
Catholics do not have to oppose the death penalty. That is pure bunk. It is pure bunk to claim, as jon does, that to support the death penalty is to dissent from magisterial teaching.
“One sign of hope is that public opinion is manifesting a growing opposition to the death penalty, even as a means of legitimate social defense. Indeed, nowadays the death penalty is unacceptable, however grave the crime of the convicted person. It is an offense to the inviolability of life and to the dignity of the human person; it likewise contradicts God’s plan for individuals and society, and his merciful justice. Nor is it consonant with any just purpose of punishment. It does not render justice to victims, but instead fosters vengeance. The commandment “Thou shalt not kill” has absolute value and applies both to the innocent and to the guilty.” —Pope Francis, address to 6th World Congress against the Death Penalty in Oslo,…
Norway, June 21, 2016. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life! Yes on 62, NO on 66!
A USCCB rep responded to my dubia (see above):
“It is not a sin and not required, but you should support the Church in this matter. And if not, you better have very good and sound theological reasons for disagreeing with the Church which is the position you find yourself in for not agreeing on this teaching. Your guide should be sentire cum ecclesiae (thinking with the Church).”
As I knew and argued. So there you go, jon. A rep from the USCCB confirms Catholics are not obligated to oppose the death penalty nor is it sinful to oppose abolishing it. You should stop insisting that supporters of the death penalty repent, for they have nothing to repent for.
As for the rep’s “threatening” admonition that I “should” support the Church in this matter and, if not, I “better” have very good and sound theological reasons, and that I should think with the Church, well the Church’s doctrine about the perennial validity of the death penalty satisfies that.
The rep’s scare tactics underscore the bishops’ weak case. They know they cannot use doctrinal arguments to compel Catholics to oppose capital punishment, and they know they cannot oppose capital punishment on doctrinal grounds. So they resort to intimidation and a united front to make it appear that Catholics must think and act in union with them, when Catholics are completely free to have a differing opinion. Ratzinger called it…
Also, the rep got the Latin wrong. The phrase is “sentire cum ecclesia” (not ecclesiae). “Cum” takes the ablative case, not dative or genitive.
He’s just a lackey who had a hissy fit because when pressed to be specific he had to admit that it’s not sinful for a Catholic to oppose abolishing capital punishment, so his whole department’s basis for existence is shown to be tenuous.
The bishops should be more honest about the Church’s actual doctrine concerning capital punishment. The Church does not teach that it should be abolished. States have the right to resort to capital punishment, but its exercise should be subjected to prudential judgment regarding whether it is moral or immoral in any particular case.
In other…
In other words, keep capital punishment as a lawful option but use it rarely in modern, current historical and social conditions.
Sawyer, the Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium, mandates Catholics to adhere with a religious submission of mind and will to the judgments of the pope (#25). Plus, Canon Law 752 urges Catholics to avoid whatever is contrary to the authentic teaching of the magisterium. The Magisterium during the pontificates of the three recent popes authentically taught the abolition of the death penalty. WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL?
jon, with that remark you demonstrate conclusively that you cannot be reasoned with. So I will no longer engage you in discussion. Lord knows, I tried.
If I reply to you or remark about you in the future, absent an apology from you, it will only be to remind you and others that you are too stiff-necked and hard-headed to be open to truth and reason.
I got a USCCB rep to admit that Catholics do not have to support abolishing the death penalty, and still that isn’t good enough for you.
No valid argument will convince you because your own opinions are a false magisterium for yourself. You have made yourself pope jon.
I will not engage you further in fruitless attempts at reason. You are decidedly unreasonable.
The definitive documents of the Church—namely the Dogmatic Constitution “Lumen Gentium” (25), Canon Law (754), the Catechism (2267), the CDF Letter from 2004—TRUMPS the alleged “declarations” of a “rep”. Sorry Sawyer, but your point here cannot hold water. Listen to the Magisterium. Respect life. Yes on 62, No on 66!
I hasten to add another Church document, Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical, “Evangelium Vitae” (56). This document alone TRUMPS a “declaration” of a “rep.”
These arm-chair theologians, practicing theology without a license are now proposing a scenario in which Joseph Ratzinger may have contradicted himself. According to these pro-death advocates, as Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger says in the CDF Letter that Catholics are permitted to have a legitimate diversity of opinion on the matter. However, as Pope the same Joseph Ratzinger calls on the world to abolish the death penalty. Did he contradict himself? Did he change his mind? I mean, his position as Cardinal is one thing, but as Pope it’s another? So, help us Sawyer, what are you saying here?
“It cannot be over emphasized that the right to life must be recognized in all its fullness…In this context I joyfully greet the initiative by which Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2005, and the recent measures adopted by some Mexican states to protect human life from its beginnings. These resolute moves in such a fundamental question should be an emblem of your homeland, one of which it can be justly proud”. Pope Benedict XVI to the new Mexican ambassador to the Holy See on July 10, 2009. Listen to the living Magisterium! Respect life!
No, jon, it’s not a contradiction because the popes are exhorting the world to curtail the use of the death penalty to a degree that Catholic faith does not obligate one to assent to. Popes are going beyond what Catholic faith requires in their personal opinions and exhortations.
It is true that there may be (is permitted to be) a legitimate diversity of opinion about applying the death penalty. Hence the CDF letter.
It is also true that popes have recently expressed a personal desire that the world refrain from implementing the death penalty; but they have not taught that Catholic faith obliges all Catholics to agree on that.
Simple once you make the proper distinctions.
Saywer: you’re wrong again.
1) JP2, Benedict, Francis are not using the word “curtail” but “ABOLISH” as in “abolish the death penalty.” Contrary to your assertion, the popes are NOT going beyond what Catholic faith requires: THEY DEFINE the application of the faith in our time.
2) It is not true that the word “may” means permission. Rather, the verb “may” here means a possibility. The meaning of the sentence itself precludes the syntax you’re assigning to the verb “may.” For instance if were to adopt your interpretation, then Ratzinger is giving permission to non-Catholics to have a legitimate diversity of opinion?! And only as a side note, “even” to Catholics?? You need to freshen up on basic…
You should submit to the prudential judgement of the Pope. But you don’t. According to the letter, you cannot be refused communion because you don’t. It is not permission to dissent.
The rule is: if you are not in communion, you should not take communion.
There are a lot of people who submit to things they don’t understand yet simply because they know the Pope is wiser than they are. It is a lack of humility that is driving this argument.
“…arm-chair theologians, practicing theology without a license ..” -jon 7/24/16
Remove the plank from thine own eye, brother, so you will see more clearly to remove the splinter from thy brother’s.
jon doesn’t realize that I have a S.T.L.
So, jon, now that a USCCB rep has validated my judgment that it is not obligatory nor sinful nor dissenting for Catholics to oppose abolishing the death penalty, will you admit your error, apologize to those you have wronged by telling them they were dissenters, and retract your calls for repentance?
My work here is done. I will not respond to any posts that appear above what I relate about the USCCB rep responding to my dubia.
The only way for you to remain in your error, jon, is to be stubbornly closed to the truth and to reason. I have laid it out as clearly as can be done.
We await your decision, jon, Do you admit your error?
And so as we hear the last of Sawyer, let’s find consolation in the truth on this issue from Pope Benedict:
“I rejoice that on 18 December last, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution calling upon States to institute a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, and I earnestly hope that this initiative will lead to public debate on the sacred character of human life.” Pope Benedict XVI to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See, January 7, 2008. ”
Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life! Yes on 62, No on 66!
jon, are you going to tell us we need to oppose life imprisonment because Pope Francis denounced it in October 2014, calling life imprisonment a hidden death penalty? The pope said it, after all.
As I warned in comments on another article, abolishing the death penalty is only a step in leftist aims of making it easier to release all criminals. If the DP is abolished, the next argument will be that life imprisonment is a virtual death sentence and is cruel.
Then long sentences will be deemed cruel, so perhaps murderers will only be sentenced to five years. After all, it would be unmerciful to take their lives from them.
It’s a slippery slope, and some unwitting bishops and Catholics are being played for fools by the Left.
Recall that the Left used same-sex civil unions as a tactic in getting the Supreme Court to impose same-sex marriage on the nation. Advocates denied that they wanted same-sex marriage even while people like me warned that granting legal recognition to same-sex unions would inexorably lead down a slippery slope to the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Similarly, if the Left succeeds in abolishing capital punishment it will be a step to reducing criminal sentences across the board.
Don’t believe that life imprisonment will be accepted any more than that civil unions were going to be accepted. As Pope Francis has shown, some will argue that life imprisonment is a virtual death sentence and that it should also be abolished once they…
Well, yes. A good Catholic adheres to an authentic teaching of the Holy Father according to his mind and will. Lumen Gentium states that the pope’s “mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking” (25).
So for instance, Pope JP2 articulated the teaching on the abolition of the death penalty MANY TIMES and with sufficient force. He also wrote about it in an Encyclical. This made JP’s mind and will clear and manifest, to which Catholics can adhere to.
Therefore, if Pope Francis repeats this teaching many more times, writes about it, delivers homilies about it, and mentions it in many more speeches (as JP2 did…
on the issue of the abolition of the death penalty), then we will have known more definitely the Holy Father’s mind and will on the matter.
Here is Pat Buchanan and Scalia 14 years ago.
https://www.wnd.com/2002/02/12707/
There are remaining issues here that I would like to address:
1) The pro-death advocates are saying that we should keep the death penalty because of the scenario that the present penal and prison systems might no longer in the future protect society from capital criminals. My response: this is a weak and illigitimate opinion because the fact is that the rate of prison escapes in the US has actually been going down. Plus, the remedy for any weakness in the prison system should be first to strengthen it, rather than by first applying the death penalty. The former is the more prudent, more proportionate way of addressing that concern.
2) The traditional Catholic principle is not violated by the recent popes’ call to abolish…
the death penalty. The death penalty is only valid if no other way is available to protect society: that is the traditional Catholic principle/teaching (as articulated by the Catechism itself). Because bloodless means are now available, such as maximum security prisons, therefore the use of the death penalty in our time is unnecessary and indeed cruel as judged by John Paul II.
3) The recent popes are not merely stating a “private” and “personal” wish when they preach and write formally against the death penalty. No, the recent popes’ words calling for the abolition of the death penalty are authentic teachings of the Magisterium, which must be adhered to by members of the Catholic Church. This is supported by Lumen Gentium…
and Canon 752. And those who dissent/go against a manifest teaching of the pope commits the sin of dissent.
4) Concerning the sin of dissent related to the death penalty, because this dissent does not carry the same moral weight as abortion or euthanasia which are intrinsic evils, those guilty of dissent on this issue may still receive Communion. This is the principal message of the 2004 CDF Letter. The Letter does not permit dissent on this or on any matter of faith and morals. The syntax of “may be” in paragraph three conveys the possibility of a legitimate diversity of opinion, not the existence of it, nor the permission.
5) As for this alleged “response” from an inquiry forwarded to the USCCB, the authenticity of…
the authenticity of it is seriously in doubt, for three reasons. The credibility of the questioner is a strong concern. Additionally, the circumstances surrounding the inquiry and the nature and manner of response cast strong doubt as to its authenticity. Thirdly, the lack of any verification and follow-up.
6) Lastly, the lack of a Catholic sense of docility and obedience among the pro-death advocates to the expressed authentic teachings of the Holy Father and the bishops is striking and breathtaking. There is no willingness to discern and understand the will of God for our times in the teachings of the Church on this issue, but only suspicion, mistrust, and antipathy against the Magisterium. The claim that the Magisterium has…
has contradicted the supposed perennial teachings of the Church is contradictory, for it is precisely the Magisterium that has been given by God to interpret and guard the perennial teachings of the Church on this or on any issue.
I am voting again for implementation of the death penalty. It is easy to flap one’s jaw about the death penalty when a loved one has not been brutally murdered. Sadly, the Bishop is all theory.
Anyone can send an email to deathpenalty at usccb.org for himself and ask whether Catholics are obligated to support abolishing the death penalty or whether it is sinful to oppose abolishing the death penalty. The staff in that office answered my inquiry speedily.
But Sawyer, with due respect, the “rep” said you must have a “good and sound theological reasons for disagreeing with the Church.” I have followed the thread, and I do not discern a “good and sound theological reason” for your disagreement. One reason you gave is the possibility escapes. But these are rare occurrences, according to reports. Another reason you gave is that the Church allows divergent views on this. I fail to see a convincing support for that reason.
And they said…
Anonymous, if you would read the messages above you would see that the staff member at the USCCB death penalty department affirmed that it is not obligatory for Catholics to support abolishing the death penalty, nor is it sinful for Catholics to oppose abolishing the death penalty.
When pressed to be specific, bishops and knowledgeable theologians who do support abolishing the death penalty will acknowledge that their stance is not obligatory for Catholics to agree with. As Cardinal Ratzinger clarified, diversity of opinion about the application of the death penalty is permitted among Catholics.
Sorry, but venial sin are not permitted by the Church, and dissent on this matter would be an instance of it. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect lfie.
I have to say, Sawyer, you have been very precise and charitable but at this point, you have to recognize the pathology on display.
I do recognize it, gravey. That is why I have told my interlocutor that I will no longer engage him in debate.
As usual, the position of pro-death advocates literally hang on the deliberate and stubborn misinterpretation of the verb “may be” in the third paragraph of the 2004 CDF Letter. This type of thing usually happens folks when obedience, logic, and reason gives way to intentional dissent: words are twisted, their meaning robbed of their integrity. It’s very CLINTONESQUE, when he said, “It depends on the meaning of the word ‘is’.”
So folks: I also sent a dubia on Monday. Here’s the response:
Question 1: “Are Catholics required to give religious assent of mind and will to the Church’s teaching on the abolition of the death penalty, in compliance with Lumen Gentium, paragraph 25?”
Response: “Affirmative. Yes.”