Diocesan Paper: Homosexual Relations Not Sinful

Church Militant ^ | 10/9/15 | Joseph Gonzales

[Mrs. Don-o]

Umm.. OK... what in the world do you mean by “despite the teachings of the Catholic Church”?

[NetAddicted]

Well, yours is my first bookmarked comment.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well then... thank you!

[xone]

In the scripture you referenced, Jesus was not repeat not making a statement about capital punishment. As He knew the Pharisees had no interest in adultery other than the chance to force Him into making a stand about Mosaic law or affirming their right to use capital punishment while under Roman rule where the Empire reserved that capability to themselves.
He not only thwarted them, but pointed out their hypocrisy in only presenting the woman ‘caught in adultery’. If they had caught her at it, where was the man? Mosaic law would have them both stoned. By saying ‘those without sin cast the first stone’, He in effect challenged them to put up or shut up regarding the use of capital punishment without the Roman empire’s sanction.
Finally, since Jesus was all about repentance and turning from sin, He didn’t condemn the woman after the Pharisees had balked but instead admonished her to ‘go and sin no more’.
Paul’s letter to the Romans chap 13 affirms rightful authority to administer capital punishment because all authority on earth is derived from God.
The current stance of the Catholic church is anti-capital punishment is it not? The question is at what point in history did it change? They encouraged it use against its enemies in the past.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The "current stance" of the Church acknowledges, as it always has, the legitimacy of capital punishment under specific circumstances, as well as the Christ-like practice of foregoing it in the interests of the sinner having a fuller chance of repenting and turning away from sin.

From the Catechism:

#2267 (LINK) Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

The last paragraph ("Today, in fact...") is a prudential judgment, not a universal doctrine. That is, an attempted assessment of particular times and places where the severity of capital punishment could be foregone by the substitution of, for instance, life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Many have noted, with reason, that even a murderer with a life sentence can still aggress against others, e.g. by assault upon a guard or another prison staffer or another prisoner, and that these cases there would be no other recourse except the death penalty.

[xone]

So when did this change? Were there no prisons before when the Catholic church used the practice? Also, the words the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

add an element to Paul's words recorded in Romans where that determination belongs to the legitimate authority.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The emphasis, I think, is that the state has the right and the duty to protect society--- and ever member in it --- from aggression. If the aggressor cannot be stopped without killing him, then you can justly kill him. But if he can be stopped by non-lethal force, then the state should use that non-lethal force (the force involved in imprisonment.)

I personally doubt -- and as a Catholic, am permitted to doubt --- the "prudential" part that says that modern societies can now effectively do this. We have all seen how difficult it is to get a real life sentence that cannot be overturned by appeal, by resentencing, by parole, by escape, but a judge letting people go to relieve overcrowding or for some other bogus reason.

No to mention that convict-against-convict aggression is extremely common, which ought to result in a lot more capital sentences, since such reoffenders have demonstrated that imprisonment alone is not sufficient to restrain them.

Bottom line, the Catholic Church will not, and cannot, say that executions are never just, or equate the just application of the death penalty with murder. The death penaly, even if very rare, must always be an option if it is the only way to protect society (even prison society) from the continuing predations of violent offenders.

[xone]

Again, when did this change occur from past practice?

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's not, strictly speaking, a change in doctrine but probably in emphasis. It has never been considered obligatory to execute criminals for capital crimes; for instance, the courts of the various Church Inquisitions had a lower rate of capital punishment than secular or royal courts. Historian Thomas Madden points to documentary evidence that accused criminals sometimes tried to have their trials transferred to ecclesiatical courts, where there were higher standards of evidence and procedural due process, and much lower rates of capital sentencing.

[xone]

Obligatory really isn’t the question, as much as that CP is the province of legitimate gov’t not the church. If this isn’t a recent change, why would there ever have been a death penalty levied and carried out in an ecclesiastical court?

[Mrs. Don-o]

As far as I know, even if the trial was conducted in an ecclesiastical court, people convicted of capital crimes were always handed over to the “civil arm” for punishment. This rendition, however, did not mean that the Church required a particular punishment to be carried out. The Church, itself, was authorized only to impose ecclesiatical punishments, e.g. excommunication.

[PA-RIVER]

Thanks for setting me straight.

[PA-RIVER]

Thanks for setting me straight.