Can the Church Ban Capital Punishment?

Pie Chart ~ In a given week [2010] in the U.S., there are 19,231 deaths of completely innocent humans versus 1 death of a convicted murderer who survived an average of over 10 years of appeals, and whose guilt is virtually certain.

Can the Church Ban Capital Punishment?

Today [December 2, 2011] Crisis is offering a symposium on capital punishment. For Archbishop Charles Chaput’s view, see this essay. For news about recent Vatican statements on the issue, see this article.

This piece on capital punishment is a revision of the original, which first appeared in Latin Mass Magazine (Summer 2001).

It is written from a “traditionalist” perspective, a traditionalist being simply a Catholic who affirms—as a Catholic must—that the Second Vatican Council changed nothing of what a Catholic must believe in order to be a member of the Church in good standing.

As the First Vatican Council declared: “For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the Successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” (Cf. Denzinger, §1836)

Of course, an authentic development of doctrine is always possible in the sense of a fuller explication of what the Church has always taught.

But neither a Pope nor a Council has an oracular function of providing the latest and most reliable Catholic teaching.

The Catholic faith, unlike the statute books on which lawyers rely, does not involve periodic “pocket parts” containing amendments or repeals to be inserted into the back of the book.

If the “hermeneutic of continuity” means anything, it means that Catholic teaching on faith and morals is not subject to reversal.

A reversible Magisterium would be no Magisterium at all, but rather a human agency bereft of the promises of Christ—like the Protestant sects which have abandoned doctrine after doctrine over the centuries since Luther began the process of abandonment.

Read full article Here.
Holy Cannoli
Your comment is a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as non-sequitur.
The Passion and crucifixion of Christ was the result of the Jewish elders of the time, including the High Priest, scribes and whole Sanhedrin, who decided to intensely, unjustly and diabolically demand that the Roman government kill Jesus.
Except for enraging the leaders of the Jews who saw Him as a threat to their …More
Your comment is a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as non-sequitur.

The Passion and crucifixion of Christ was the result of the Jewish elders of the time, including the High Priest, scribes and whole Sanhedrin, who decided to intensely, unjustly and diabolically demand that the Roman government kill Jesus.

Except for enraging the leaders of the Jews who saw Him as a threat to their power, He was innocent of wrongdoing. Even Pilate said so.

Capital punishment is and was an acceptable form of punishment for certain heinous capital crimes despite the Politically Correct musings of post VC-II modernists which have only clouded the issue and distorted the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church.

That was the point of the article.

You would do well to try and comprehend what is written in an article before attempting to comment on it.
kalbright36
Jesus came to save sinners. Which of us sinners is deserving of his sacrifice? He was an innocent victim. He was wrongly executed. His should have been the last use of capital punishment. He is Lord of all lives --of the innocent and guilty--from conception to natural death.