The following comes from a July 14 CA Catholic news release:
SACRAMENTO, CA – During this Jubilee Year of Mercy, we, the Catholic Bishops of California support Proposition 62 which would end the use of the death penalty in California. Our commitment to halt the practice of capital punishment is rooted both in the Catholic faith and our pastoral experience.
The Bishops of the United States have long opposed the use of capital punishment. In the past, it was sometimes morally justified in order to protect society, but those times have passed. Proposition 62 provides voters with the opportunity to end this practice in California, just as 19 other states have already done.
Capital punishment has repeatedly been shown to be severely and irrevocably flawed in its application. In the long – but absolutely necessary – process of ensuring an innocent person is not put to death, we have seen many accused persons being exonerated as new forms of forensic investigation have enabled us to better scrutinize evidence. The high cost of implementing the death penalty has diverted resources from more constructive and beneficial programs both for rehabilitation and restoration of victims and offenders. Finally, repeated research has demonstrated that the death penalty is applied inconsistently along racial, economic and geographical lines.
For all of these reasons, we must also oppose Proposition 66 which will expedite executions in California. The search for a fair and humane execution process and protocol has failed for decades. Any rush to streamline that process will inevitably result in the execution of more innocent people. Neither the proponents nor the opponents of the death penalty wish this result.
As Catholic Bishops we are heartened by the growth of Catholic lay movements aimed at ending the use of the death penalty. The faithful have heard the words of St. Pope John Paul II, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis to stop this practice around the world. As Pope Francis has stated:
A spreading opposition to the death penalty, even as an instrument of legitimate social defense, has developed in public opinion, and this is a sign of hope. In fact, modern societies have the ability to effectively control crime without definitively taking away a criminal’s chance to redeem himself. The issue lies in the context of a perspective on a criminal justice system that is ever more conformed to the dignity of man and God’s design for man and for society. And also a criminal justice system open to the hope of reintegration in society. The commandment “thou shall not kill” has absolute value and pertains to the innocent as well as the guilty. (2/21/16 – Angelus)
The California bishops are wrong to endorse the misguided initiative.
For an excellent, just-published article titled “Why the Church Cannot Reverse Past Teaching on Capital Punishment”, click on the link below:
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/4928/why_the_church_cannot_reverse_past_teaching_on_capital_punishment.aspx
Quote:
The fact is that it is the irreformable teaching of the Church that capital punishment can in principle be legitimate, not merely to ensure the physical safety of others when an offender poses an immediate danger (a case where even John Paul II was willing to allow for the death penalty), but even for purposes such as securing retributive justice and deterring serious crime. What is open to debate…
…What is open to debate is merely whether recourse to the death penalty is in practice the best option given particular historical and cultural circumstances. That is a “prudential” matter about which popes have no special expertise.
We defend these claims in detail and at length in our book By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of the Death Penalty, forthcoming from Ignatius Press. What follows is a brief summary of some key points…. Having shown here that Catholic teaching has always supported the legitimacy of capital punishment, in part 2 of this article we will discuss some of the reasons for believing that it remains necessary for achieving public safety and the larger common good.
—
The California…
Totally wrong again as usual is Sawyer’s opinion on this. Sawyer, Edward Fesser and Joseph Bessette are not members of the Magisterium. As solid as their education may be, they are not the Holy Father nor the bishops from whom THE definitive teachings of the Church emanate.
The Catechism articulates THE TRADITIONAL principle in Catholic teaching on this, that there be recourse to capital punishment ONLY “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor” (2267). The judgment of St. Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict–whom I would rely more upon than on the team Bessette and Fesser especially for something involving human life–is that there are now other practicable…
…. ways to defend human lives without recourse to killing. And because the popes and the bishops have rendered their judgment on the need to abolish the death penalty, THIS JUDGMENT becomes binding per Lumen Gentium 25: that their judgments be adhered to with religious assent.
Your POV makes a mockery of the teachings of the Popes. You would have us believe that the popes contradict the teachings of the Church. WRONG. With your POV you are basically giving an excuse to disregard their solemn teaching on this matter, when Vatican II implores us to adhere to their judgment. This is not a mere opinion of the popes. This is a BINDING judgment.
The judgment of the Magisterium is that the death penalty be abolished as there are now other means to protect society against a capital criminal. This is NOT merely a wish or an appeal by the Magisterium, but a magisterial teaching, to which Catholic must give assent per Lumen Gentium 25.
If it’s a binding judgment, jon, then why did Cardinal Ratzinger state that Catholics may disagree with JPII regarding the application of the death penalty without having to refrain from receiving Communion? It can’t be a binding judgment; otherwise Cardinal Ratzinger couldn’t have said what he did. You can support capital punishment and be in full communion with the Church.
jon, you are well-intentioned, but you are ignorant on this matter and you are wrong.
Fact is, the expressions of popes to curtail use of the death penalty are their private opinions, not magisterial pronouncements.
You are tiresome on this matter. Like a broken record that is out of tune.
We must keep to doctrine, jon, not the evolving whims of those who increasingly seek to appease and pretend that problems are not there in order to appeal to the masses.
Great! So Sawyer now asks about Ratzinger’s 2004 Letter called “Worthiness To Receive.” I’ve been PATIENTLY waiting for the conversation to go here. Check my comment below.
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition 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. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” John Paul II’s homily, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999. Listen to the Magisterium. Respect life. Vote YES on Prop 62, NO on Prop 66!
The teaching does not change. In this society at this time, it may not be as necessary in order to protect people. There are certainly too many people put to death in error, and those lives are snuffed out wrongly. Even one is too many.
I don’t know that I would vote for this in California, as I think capital punishment is a deterrent here compared to the period we did away with it. If they put everyone in solitary and made them chip rocks with another rock to keep them busy and in their purgatory until natural death, maybe. I am discerning.
The traditional teaching/principle of the Church on this matter is articulated in the Catechism TC which says that ONLY when there are no other practicable ways to defend society can there be recourse to the death penalty. THere are now other ways to defend society without putting to death the guilty, therefore, the Church now teaches that this cruel and unnecessary punishment BE ABOLISHED! Vote yes on 62, no on 66! Respect life!
Gentle Reader, we hear the ravings of the Theocratic Societarians (eg, “jon” aka “Rose”, aka ___ (fill in the blank): “XYZ should be ABOLISHED”), people who wish to impose their perfect understanding of the Divine Will on us all and effect their utopia, people such as Mullah Omar, er. “jon the pious”.
Now, Gentle Reader, these same sectarian mullahs issue their fatwas, excommunicating and threatening Muslim, er, Catholic “dissidents”, judging them of sin vs. the Q’uran, er, The Holy Book, etc. etc.—after all, in their Perfect Société, contrary views are a Threat.
Better comply, Gentle Reader, or … well you know what Mad Mullahs do next. “Convert, or…!”
No mention of cases like ‘Tookie’ Williams, founder of the notorious murderous ‘Crips’ gang – who was offered clemency in return for assisting in ending the Evil Murderous Thuggery he was central in creating and fostering – but Chose to Die rather than ‘rat out’ other Murderers.
Until and unless these advocates can provide a method where Criminal Gang Lords can Not Continue Leadership of the Gang while incarcerated – what other alternatives do they have?
Killing in retribution is entirely different than Killing to Defend the Innocent from being Killed – and I have seen nothing in their words showing they understand the nature of the beast – and that Prison (with its Prisoner Rights Codes) does Not Stop Ordering the Deaths of…
Actually we need MORE capital punishment for the worst crimes.
the lamentably squishy bishops don’t know this but a severe punishment deters offenders.
False charity to want a softer punishment.
If you are kind to the cruel you will be cruel to the kind.
How about the year for mercy for unborn babies?
These same bishops, so enthusiastically against capital punishment, were tepid if not cold, to the Initiative for Parental Notification on Abortion .
They always run to the Leftist Democrat Party playbook.
“These same bishops, so enthusiastically against capital punishment, were tepid if not cold, to the Initiative for Parental Notification on Abortion.”
“They always run to the Leftist Democrat Party playbook.”
You, nailed it, Ed J! The inconsistency is a huge RED FLAG. Church history is repeating itself, because it is now very clear why St. John Chrysostom, nailed it too.
From the California Bishops:
In the case of parental notification, for many years concerned citizens have sought to protect the right of parental involvement with their children during what can be one of the most vulnerable and confusing events of their young lives. Current laws deny all parents the opportunity to compassionately support their daughters presuming some parents are not capable of doing so.
Instead of encouraging a vulnerable teen age girl to turn to her family during what is probably a very desperate and frightful time, California laws persuade her to separate herself from her family and those who most care for her. These laws leave the young woman a prey to influences other than those who love her. She is isolated…
Wake up, Mr. James Anony Carville! You should not behave like a slick hired strategist who relentlessly enables others in their dereliction of duty. We are talking about our lead shepherds who have the authority to enforce action to stop the slaughtering of the unborn. It is NOT enough to simply put out a written statement. God bless, courageous Kenneth M. Fisher, who said, “You can publicly quote teachings or write public statements but if you never enforce anything then something IS very wrong. It is well known that many parishes do not have or want parental notification sign-ups. The reason being, the offending of the collection basket do to the comfort level in the pew.
You think the bishops can enforce actions to stop abortions?
They can’t even stop them among Catholics.
“You think the bishops can enforce actions to stop abortions. They can’t even stop them among Catholics. ”
I am referring to sign-ups not abortion. Catholics having abortions is another example of being poorly catechized. There seems to be plenty of action time for playing Pokemon but no time to take action to enforce that each pastor is participating in parental notification signups.
Is is a bishop’s duty to take action to enforce or make sure that the pastor in each parish, participates in the parental notification sign ups. I received a telephone call from a parishioner from a wealthy parish in South Orange County. This parishioner was extremely concerned because a good priest in the parish was being terribly treated by the pastor for speaking up against abortion and especially homosexuality. This good priest was told to NOT preach about these topics so this is a case where a bishop needs to take the time to enforce that parental notification sign-ups are being done.
“May Christmas help to strengthen and renew, throughout the world, the consensus concerning the need for urgent and adequate measures to halt the production and sale of arms, to defend human life, to end the death penalty…” Pope John Paul II’s message “Urbi et Orbi”, Christmas 1998.
The Dallas police shooter was executed by a bomb. The Baton Rouge shooter was killed by police. A cop was just killed in Kansas City. Did the above 2 examples deter the KC shooters? No! So a NUT is going to do what a NUT is going to do and nothing will stop them! What is the answer?
Removing guns from the shooters. That is the answer. It’s not the answer to EVERY situation, but it certainly de-escalates the police who need to fear that every situation involves people who legally or illegally possess guns and threaten their lives.
“YFC”, guns save lives too, don’t forget. Self defense is our duty to ourselves, and a gun is a great equalizer. Most people are responsible gun owners and cannot be equated to gang members or terrorists who kill haphazardly.
After recent events, perhaps you’d like to outlaw trucks, knives, machetes, etc. Anything can be used as a weapon by those so inclined.
So the police go up to the shooter and say “give me your guns”? Yea, that will work! Or maybe when the shooter legally buys the guns they fill out a form which asks “will you use this gun to shoot/kill police”? A smart shooter will check ‘NO’! Well, that won’t work! Disarm the good citizens and then only the bad citizens will have guns? RIGHT!
….and police cannot be everywhere, YFC. Citizens need to maintain the ability to protect themselves and their families from the nut jobs.
There are essentially no cases of people protecting themselves with guns. Almost none. Yet thousands die needlessly at the hands of guns.
YFC, you need to search the internet more thoroughly. There are AMPLE stories about incidents in which private citizens have protected themselves or other innocent people from harm by using a gun in self defense.
You are thoroughly ignorant about this matter. Thoroughly. Take off the blinders that skew your perception.
Show the evidence
YFC, Police Officer defend themselves everyday with a side arm. Cap guns still go bang or do they offend you as well. “GROW UP”.
Without repentance, there is more than ample evidence to prove that homosexual acts can kill the life of sanctifying grace within the soul. That never stops the same rotating name troll from overtly selling the death penalty on this good Catholic website. This is also proof how many have become slave-like hostages, imprisoned by their own sinful choice. Intellectual honesty would never allow someone to rail against the death penalty while simultaneously subjecting themselves and others to the worst death penalty ever. The loss of Eternal Life.
“Show the evidence.” Doubting Thomas, also asked Jesus to show him the evidence.
Matthew 10: 26-28 Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.
You are right, Joe, police officers do defend themselves everyday with side arms. They must do so because they know that too many of the people they are out there to protect and defend against are themselves carrying guns.
JC Cahill, you will get varied answers to your question, depending on who answers. The far right will tell you to execute the criminals because it will deter future crimes. The far left will tell you to get rid of guns. Neither works. The answer is the Truth, with a capital T and small ‘t’. The small-t “truth” is expounded by folks like the book “War on Cops”–the truth that crime, not race, drives police actions and prison rates. The capital-T Truth is Our Lord. Without him in the lives of many of our people, violence, murder, disregard for life ensues.
Of all the crazy time wasters! Why not do your jobs, CA bishops, and stand up to homosexuals, who are encouraged by your cowardice to continue to commit mortal sin every day? Why not stand up to abortionists and Planned Parenthood, who kill and enable the murder of the innocent; had you put your lives on the line, there would be no abortion in CA. And, try to learn something about the Church, while you are at it. Aquinas, St. Augustine, many others have reflected the Church’s teachings that, under certain circumstances, taking the life of a criminal is not a sin. Time to get real Catholic replacements for these incompetents.
WRONG! The bishops are indeed doing their jobs. They’re teaching you that all human life is sacred, even if that person has committed a heinous crime. The problem is that folks like you refuse to listen and heed. Aquinas and Augustine were right to allow the death penalty IN THEIR TIME. Guess what, in the judgment of John Paul II and Benedict, the use of the death penalty is not viable. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Sorry, jon– these two Popes (Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI emeritis) differ, on this issue! Pope Francis and Pope St. John Pau II, however– have the same view, on capital punishment. One should not be so sure of oneself on this issue. It is not an easy one!
Pope Benedict called for the abolition of the death penalty.
Anonymous, you are correct! I forgot, as I had also read the opposite! But you are right —- when he was our reigning Pope, he did call for an end to capital punishment! Thanks for the post!
So– you and jon both are correct, Anonymous! Yes– all three Popes, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I– all called for an end to capital punishment, while serving as Popes! (However I did read some writings of Pope Benedict XVI, before that time– which shows that he expressed the traditional, older Catholic view, of capital punishment.)
Christ allowed the death penalty IN HIS TIME. And sorry, jon, but these times are dangerous, too. Especially as criminals continue their criminal activity in jail. That’s how soft we’ve become. Enabling prisoners to operate from prison.
Listen to the magisterium that cannot turn round and bite off its own head or eat its own doctrine. Respect life! Respect common sense. And don’t forget what it means to truly “respect” something or someone. Playing perpetual softie and liberal to a fault is not respect, but enabling, pandering, and negligence of that which often must be done.
Stop the effeminacy. Respect true masculinity. Respect those who have to do the hard job. Respect balance. Respect reality.
Let us listen to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in the document “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles” :
“Not all moral issues have the same weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father (John Paul II) on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a diversity of opinion even among…
…Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
” 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, January 23, 1999 at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City.
I think that there is too much “leftist liberal” sympathy, for dangerous criminals, in today’s society– and too little moral training for kids, also! Kids do not grow up with any fear of facing serious consequences, for crimes! And kids also grow up, without the fear that certain criminals, such as ISIS criminals— are EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, and WE MUST BEWARE OF THEM!! NO SYMPATHY!! THEY ARE THE MOST HIGHLY-DANGEROUS THING ON EARTH!! Maybe Christ would not believe in capital punishment. But I think He would favor a society with good moral training, and good laws, with appropriate consequences for sin– and He would wish to protect His Mother, and all of us!!
In my post, above, I said, “NO SYMPATHY”– for ISIS criminals! Well, even Christ would have LOVE for them, His enemies– as they are God’s children, but “gone astray!” But the whole point is, that they are HIGHLY DANGEROUS!! The U.S. should take such dangerous criminals very seriously, and GET RID OF THEM!! Not allow them into the U.S., or deport them, if they come here! Or else– lock them up for good, if they commit a horrible crime– while at the same time, seeking to try to rehabilitate them too, if it is possible! Society must be protected from all criminals, especially, from these DANGEROUS ISIS RADICALS!!
I recall when young, reading the beautiful “Story of a Soul,” the autobiography of St. Therese of Lisieux. She told of the time when she prayed for the conversion of a convicted murderer– and God answered her prayers! The murderer kissed the crucifix, at the moment before his execution! St. Therese was overjoyed– her first conversion, with her prayers!
This may be distressing to some people– but our era is one in which discipline is lax, hedonism and selfishness are extreme– and the human being and his/her earthly life, and individual rights– are extremely valued, beyond all else! If you know the older Church, and all of her great Saints, Popes, and writers, before the Council– NOT ONE OF THEM would say that capital punishment by the state, in certain cases, to justly protect society, and also expiate sin– is wrong! Even Pope (emeritis) Benedict too, and Abp. Fulton J. Sheen, whom I always adored, agree with this, along with many others, whom I have always greatly admired! These great Churchmen, REALLY BELIEVE in right use of the Death Penalty!
I understand the views of both Pope St. John Paul II, and Pope Francis, as well as our bishops– and I do sympathize with them! However, I also understand, that things in our current, unstable world, also can fluctuate– and change, (for the worse!) very fast, too! I am actually worried about things like ISIS– and mass murders, and all the crazy, radical people in this country, and in the world — and all the unrest! I would prefer to be like a “Quaker” or “Amish,” seeking a simple life, a true Christianity, retired from the world– as it does not follow Christ! So, here I am.. and I think that I will NOT VOTE AT ALL on this matter! I will leave my box blank, on this! I haven’t the credentials, for such a decision!
The question is if the Magisterium’s teaching on the death penalty is binding then how come the 2004 CDF Letter from Ratzinger (“Worthiness to Receive”) say that if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Pope’s views on capital punishment, he will not be unworthily receiving communion. I’ll answer in four steps:
1) A religious submission of mind and will must be shown to the authentic teachings of the Pope. His teaching on the death penalty is authentic because it is articulated in official Church documents, in his homilies, in official speeches. This is clearly stated in Lumen Gentium #25—a DOGMATIC Constitution, people! A Catholic who refuses to give religious submission of mind and will to the authentic teaching of the Church…
…therefore DISSENTS!
2) A Catholic dissenting against the Magisterium, with the Pope, on an authentic Magisterial teaching SINS! This is the sin of dissent! Canon 752 addresses this: “Christ’s faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”
3) The 2004 CDF Letter clarifies that the Church’s teaching on the death penalty does not carry the same moral weight as abortion or euthanasia which are an intrinsic moral evil. So, those who dissent from the Pope’s teaching on the death penalty are not guilty of a greater, graver sin. The sin of dissent committed by death-penalty advocates does not necessarily prohibit their receiving Communion because of the issue’s unequal moral weight…
…. with abortion or euthanasia.
4) The CDF Instruction DOES NOT EXCUSE DISSENT from the Church and from the Pope on matters of faith and morals, which includes the death penalty. The CDF Letter merely clarifies that the gravity of the issue of the death penalty is unequal to that of abortion or euthanasia.
People, you should be eternally grateful that the Church, in her mercy, continues to allow dissenters on this issue to receive Communion. The question then becomes: how come you, in turn, couldn’t show the least–the modicum–amount of mercy to those on death row. This question “may” very well be what your Savior “may” ask you at the end of time, at your judgment. Listen to the Magisterium. Respect life. Vote YES…
jon, this letter of then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s is famous, from the CDF, all about eligibility for reception of Holy Communion– and that is why I got mixed up, too, as I forgot, that when Cdl. Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI– he did change to the view of Pope St. John Paul II, and encouraged abolition of the death penalty, in all countries!
jon– I think both views on capital punishment are still acceptable for practicing Catholics. If you disagree with the Pope on this, it is not considered “heretical dissent,” it is an allowed opinion on the matter! And yes, you can receive all the Sacraments! To use one’s life to serve God, obey Christ, and prepare for Heaven, and to hope to die in a state of grace, with the Last Rites–is very important, for a Catholic. Our prelates should talk about that— and the Four Last Things, and to reform of sin! Maybe we should do lots of penance, and pray for criminals!
Vote YES on Prop 62, NO on Prop 66!
Thank you Jon for this very fine treatment of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Letter, showing us how the Church’s teaching and discipline is eminently consistent. There is no contradiction at all in all of the documents of the Church such as from the Conciliar documents such as Lumen Gentium to the Catechism to this Letter.
And I totally agree. To dissent is a sin indeed. Well done!
Rose, thanks for the kind words. Many people, especially the readership of this here blog, have forgotten about the sin of dissent. I suppose I have been brought here to remind them of this. Of course this is yeoman’s work here—the faithful messenger gets assailed or mocked or belittled for standing up for and speaking up for the shepherds. But no matter. This is the Year of Mercy. We must be merciful to them. Hopefully, they’ll be merciful back, not to us, but to those lives for whom the Church’s teaching on the death penalty seeks to save.
Actually what I find amazing is how Cal-Catholic allows such self-congratulatory blowhards so much empty space to castigate, assail other views, and ascribe sin and malice and kettle-black, when generally other responses, no matter the facts, are silenced/edited out. Once a proud site.
jon, your explication of the CDF letter is manifestly wrong as shown by this quote: ” There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
If there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics about applying the death penalty, there is no dissent. Dissent is not legitimate. The CDF letter is not saying that differing with the Holy Father about applying the death penalty is dissent; it says it is legitimate diversity of opinion.
To dissent is sinful, but to have a different legitimate opinion is not sinful.
You need to read and think more clearly.
Sawyer, you are injecting your own faulty understanding on the official words of the Church (as you had done for “intrinsic disorder”). Go back to your English grammar lessons please: remember the distinction between the verbs “is” and “may.” The Cardinal’s words were speculative, referring to a theoretical possibility of a “legitimate diversity,” hence the Cardinal’s deliberate use of the words “there may be.” He did not write that there “is” a legitimate diversity on this issue in OUR TIME.
HOWEVER one must then ask “is a legitimate diversity of opinion actually in existence at the present time in the industrialized world and even in the emerging industrialized societies?” The answer is a categorical and definite NO. Why…
Why No? The phrase calls for “legitimate” diversity of opinion, meaning opinion that is “valid,” that has “a sound basis in fact and logic,” opinion that is “strong.” No opinion offered by you or others has met this criterion. Why not? Because the fact is that there are bloodless means of protecting society without recourse to the death penalty as Pope John Paul II pointed out; also because the death penalty, given the facts at present, “does more harm than good” (Cardinal Dulles’ point from the article you yourself pointed out previously).
Therefore, because of these “legitimate” reasons—based on a sound basis in fact and logic—Pope Benedict, in his prudential judgment and without contradicting his previous words as Cardinal…
as Cardinal exploring such a theoretical possibility, has joined his predecessor in calling for an end to the death penalty, a call that indeed binds Catholics in accord with Lumen Gentium.
You see Sawyer, when interpreting the Church’s documents one must read them with docility, not injecting one’s own politics, agenda, bias, but letting God speak to us through the anointed shepherds of the Church. Otherwise, you leading yourself astray. Listen to the Magisterium. Respect life. YES on 62, NO on 66!
Just to put this more succinctly for you Sawyer: the opinion that we use the death penalty IS NOT legitimate, not valid, when there are other means at present to contain a capital criminal without recourse to killing him. To kill a prisoner for the reason of protecting society, when there are other means to do so, is CRUEL AND UNNECESSARY as judged by St. John Paul.
jon, you parse the sentence incorrectly. “May” means “is permissible” (as in, “May I please be excused?”). So to say that there “may” be diversity of opinion means that it is permissible for there to be diversity of opinion.
It is not speculative; it is descriptive.
You are wrong.
Sorry, Sawyer but if we were to adopt your interpretation of the word “may” as permissive, then the implication is that Cardinal Ratzinger is giving “permission” for Catholics to dissent against Pope John Paul II on this issue. This goes against Lumen Gentium 25 Sawyer. You would have us believe that the Cardinal is giving permission for Catholics to dissent from a teaching that JP2 has articulated many times and with force during his pontificate. This is manifestly wrong.
The principle meaning of the word according to the Oxford Online Dictionary and Webster’s is that the verb “may” expresses a hypothetical possibility. Oxford considers this as the primary use of the verb. The word “may” also express permission…
(the secondary usage), but in light of the entire Catholic discipline on the obligation that interpretation of yours on the use of the word is FAULTY because it contradicts Canon 752 and Lumen Gentium 25.
(the secondary usage), but in light of the entire Catholic discipline on the obligation that Catholics give assent to authentic Magisterial teachings, that interpretation of yours on the use of the word is FAULTY because it contradicts Canon 752 and Lumen Gentium 25.
You see people, instructing the ignorant on the issue of the death penalty is a spiritual act of mercy, a fitting thing to do on this Year of Mercy. I know I don’t have to come on this here blog to talk about the death penalty as I did five years ago or so, and then be called “ignorant,” “a broken record”, or “out-of-tune.” Folks, even the minutest sin matters, even your smallest, seemingly tiniest venial sin of dissent matters. That’s time in purgatory people. You can purge yourself of this dissent here, in this life; or at the next, which may involve more suffering. It is for the benefit of your soul that I have mercifully condescended to come and “chat” here about your dissent on the issue of the death penalty.
jon, as I explain above, it’s not sinful dissent; it’s legitimate diversity of opinion. Get that through your head.
You are indeed condescending.
Well, if you can mistake the word “may” for “is” as in the 2004 CDF Letter, it is not surprising that you would mistake the difference is the syntax of a word such as “condescend” used as a verb (as I did) as opposed to used as an adjective (as you did). To make the mistake as you did is to misinterpret the sentence. My point is that basic English grammar may be called for here in your case.
It’s called a pun, jon.
Sawyer, the fact remains that the CDF Letter itself DOES NOT SAY that there “is” a legitimate diversity of opinion. It does not! If there were, JP2 would not have called for an end to the death penalty so many times in official documents and homilies and speeches.
The person who wrote the CDF is Ratzinger, known for his exactness, precision, and careful use of words. The Cardinal in that sentence you quoted from the CDF Letter expresses a hypothetical scenario. “There may be,” not “there is.”
Nope: “may” means “is permissible”. “You may go to the bathroom” is not a hypothetical statement made by a teacher to a student; it is a descriptive statement communicating that the student has permission to leave the classroom.
Ratzinger saying that Catholics “may” have diversity of opinion about the application of the death penalty is a statement that it is permissible for Catholics to be at odds with the Holy Father’s personal opinion.
You are wrong.
This has been dealt with in a comment above.
Sawyer, apart from my comment above, if we were to believe your faulty interpretation of the word “may”, the implication here is that Joseph Ratzinger has contradicted himself as Cardinal by writing this Letter, and then as Pope by calling for the abolition of the death penalty. Wow. That is so wrong. The choice is either Ratzinger did contradict himself, or that you are wrong in your interpretation. The latter is more likely.
“This evening a demonstration will be held at the Colosseum as part of the world campaign for a moratorium on the death penalty. The Great Jubilee is an excellent opportunity to promote in the world ever more mature forms of respect for the life and dignity of every person. I therefore renew my appeal to all leaders to reach an international consensus on the abolition of the death penalty, since ‘cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'” Pope John Paul II’s Angelus Message on December 12, 1999.
Prudential judgment = private opinion, not doctrinal pronouncement or teaching.
The exhortations by pontiffs to curtail the use of the death penalty express their private opinions, not binding teachings.
The death penalty is not intrinsically evil; in fact sometimes its use is necessary and good, which is why abolishing it is immoral and shortsighted and unwise.
Wow. I didn’t realize we have gone so far “south” in the basic understanding of the nature of authentic papal pronouncements among people who call themselves Catholic. People, when the pope teaches using an official document of the Church such as an Encyclical (an example of which is JP2’s Evangelium Vitae where he called for an end to the death penalty), or when the Holy Father delivers a homily, or when he delivers an official speech, the Supreme Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present. He is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith which is binding.
Now, this is…
…different when the Pope does an airplane press conference, or when he chats at the breakfast table at Sancta Marta, or when he talks in his sleep. THOSE are private, ie, not binding. But his official pronouncements as Pope such as on the abolition of the death penalty are BINDING, per Lumen Gentium 25.
Make no mistake about that!
Do, Sawyer’s opinion is that the previous two popes and the current one are teaching something that’s “immoral and shortsighted and unwise.” Sawyer, your soul I’m afraid is deeply in dissent. Repent.
What does the church teach? The Catechism states that the death penalty may be used if it is the only way to protect the people. Otherwise, if incarceration is available it must be used. The death penalty may only be used in the rarest of cases. That is a paraphrase of the Catechism, but keeps to its meaning. Essentially the Church is and always has been against the death penalty except in rare cases. Why? Because the Church is Pro Life. It supports life from conception to natural death. If we are opposed to abortions, we must also be opposed to the death penalty, otherwise we need to join another denomination.
No, Bob, the Church recognized and taught for centuries that retribution is a legitimate aim in punishing offenses and that retribution is also an aim in the state’s use of the death penalty for certain grievous offenses.
The Church has not formally renounced that teaching, nor can it for it is perennially valid. That is why the Church can never authoritatively call for the abolition of capital punishment even though some well-intentioned but misguided prelates have exhorted nations to curtail its use.
Your confusion regarding the moral difference between killing an innocent, defenseless human (abortion) and state execution of convicted criminals is appalling.
That capital punishment is valid in principle cannot be disputed; it…
WRONG! The Church HAS authoritatively called for the abolition of the death penalty through the strong words of JP2 and Benedict. Read it yourself: “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition 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. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” Pope John Paul II at the Papal Mass in St. Louis, Missouri on January 27, 1999.
Moreover Sawyer, the death penalty is NOT VALID in our time because there are other means to contain the criminal and protect society short of unnecessarily killing him/her. Proportionality in the punishment is an important principle at work here. Listen to the Magisterium. Respect life.
So St. John Paul II and the Pope Emeritus Benedict, according to Sawyer folks, are “misguided.” By implication this also means he considers the entire present Magisterium “misguded.” Folks this is hubris (and I am the one being labled “arrogant” and “foolish?) Riiiiight. Sawyer, this is an untenable position you have put yourself into. “May” you repent of your misguided opinion, for there “is” still time! Fol
Sawyer, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Bob One– To clarify– it is an intrinsic evil, to kill a baby in its mother’s womb. But it is NOT an intrinsic evil, to execute a cold-blooded convicted murderer! Big difference! And of course, the Church is pro-life– but even more, the Church is pro-life, for God’s purposes, to purify and sanctify us all, by Christ’s Salvation — and bring us all to Heaven! It is good that the Church has a lot of prison ministries, to help save souls!
Gentle Reader:
“jon the pious”, the only pure interpreter of Catholic [Novus Ordo] faith, needs to number and date his prolix fatwas against divergent opinions, so we can all keep track of them and meditate on his law, day and night (Ps.1:2).
As for you, Sawyer, Linda Marie, Catherine, and likely Ann Malley, well, I regret to advise each of you have a personal fatwa against you by mullah jon, so tread carefully. (McDermott, you watch your step,too, you always bear ‘watching’.)
A while back the mad mullah was trying to I/D different commentators on Cal-Catholic so he could issue a specific fatwa of excommunication and ‘no dessert tonight for you.’ He’s got connections.
It is just amazing why anyone would try to cling to this rotting relic of the culture of death called the death penalty. They would go through numerous hoops akin to gymnastics to give themselves “permission” to kill another human being unjustly. How perverse!
Just look at what they have accomplished: First they are ready to do violence to the English language by making the verb “may be” to mean “is”; Second they are forwarding the notion that Cardinal Ratzinger gave permission to Catholics to dissent against JP2 on one of the important judgements of his pontificate.
It’s amazing why anyone would INSIST on killing, even if that person were guilty. The bloodlust and revenge in the heart of some of these folks is…
unspeakable! Why kill the guilty when there are other means available to protect society. JP2 was right. The death penalty IS CRUEL and UNNECESSARY!
jon, it is nice to philosophize– and hope to never have to deal with this in real life, too! However, in real life– I do hope you would– as a MAN!!– consider bearing arms, to protect your wife, children, and possibly your dear mother, sisters, and maybe an aunt, or sick, elderly grandma, visiting your family home– if a horrific, “Charles Manson” type of deranged killer, ever burst into your home! No time for “Pope John Paul II”–style philosophizing– in such a horrific situation! Also– the Vatican has the Swiss Guards, to protect the Pope! And they DO have weapons! That’s real life, jon!
Please name ONE PERSON in the last decade in the US who ever died because a person who was sentenced to death escaped from prison and then killed the family of the original person murdered.. Name ONE?
YFC, I just related a typical murder scenario– and what would jon’s response be, to it?? Well, YFC– now, what would YOUR response be, if a murderer (such as the “Charles Manson” gang) broke into your family home, and tried to kill your beloved wife and children?? Or if you were with your Mom, and they tried to kill her?? Etc. Wouldn’t you try to protect them, at all costs to yourself?? Grab a weapon, and protect them?? Even if you ended up killing the murderer?? What would you think, if the Swiss Guard bravely killed a man trying to attack and murder the Pope??
YFC– please note, I am not talking about ESCAPED CONVICTS committing murders!! I am taking about the everyday, cold-blooded killers you see, in the news. Well, what would you do?? As for escaped convicts– well, I think there have been some murders committed by escaped convicts, as well as paroled criminals. Very dangerous situation! Big manhunts for them– and disastrous results! Anyway, we have the obligation, to keep our families, and all of society, safe from all harm!!
YFC– In my above posts to jon— I am not discussing the issue of capital punishment– but of a sudden, necessary use of force, possibly taking the life of a criminal– in self-defense, and especially, to protect others! What would I, personally, do, if I were in Munich, let’s say— and happened to be walking in back of the youth who suddenly took out a gun (like the recent killer)– and what if I grabbed some sort of a sharp, heavy object, and hit him over the head, and he fell to the ground, and died? Them, what??? What if next to the dead killer, were lots of moms with babies and children?? What would they say?? Very horrible situation!!
YFC, I read a news story, of a police officer who left his job, after killing a criminal in a violent bank robbery. He was a young cop, and suddenly– he felt self-doubt and remorse, and questioned the concept of even killing a criminal, as a police officer, to protect society. All his life, he lived with painful remorse, over killing this man. His wife, however, tried to “talk sense” into him, saying, that he would have had EVEN WORSE REMORSE– if he had NOT KILLED THE CRIMINAL, and ALLOWED THE CRIMINAL TO KILL ALL THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE, AT THE BANK!!
It can’t be life-giving and satisfying to the human soul to advocate a pro-death cause. Just imagine how it saps the spirit and the life in the soul of a person who is clamoring for the right to kill! We really must pity them, folks. Their misguided disobedience is mindlessly making them support DEATH! Repent people, for the sake of your souls!
jon, there are some humble, loving, gentle Christian groups, such as the Amish– who live apart from American society, away from the un-Christian world, and quietly practice their faith. They practice Go’s Love, Mercy, and Forgiveness, similar to Pope Francis’ Holy Year. They never preach at you, threaten you, or pontificate about anything; they are not legalists, with their religion. After the brutal slayings of the Amish children at their school in Pennsylvania, some years ago– the Amish buried their poor slain children, and extended forgiveness, and kindly help, to the killer’s wife and kids–(the murderer committed suicide) — and attended his funeral, also.
Sorry for the misprint (from typing too fast!) in the fourth line of my above post– the misspelled word is “God!” We are extremely limited, in time to type these posts– with word limitations, too.
If we really want to be with Christ, and follow His ways– it is better to become a monk or a nun, and live in quiet prayer and seclusion, away from the “fallen” world, contemplating God. That is what has been done for centuries! And in monasteries and convents– with few exceptions!– you rarely have to deal with extremely evil situations! Catholic monks and Amish men (who also have left American society) do not go to war, either. But the true Christ-like life, close to Christ, is usually found in the contemplative life, away from the “fallen” world!