Capital punishment is justified

  • Thread starter Thread starter cardinalsrule
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cardinalsrule

Guest
I think the Holy Father is mistaken is his call for a universal end to capital punishment. There are instances when it is justified. The following should be considered:
  1. Knowing that his, or her, life is soon to end would be a strong motivation for repentance. A life sentence without the possibility of parole is not. In fact,
  2. The type of person who find themselves on death row would likely be motivated in just the opposite direction–to continue doing acts of mayhem and violence in prison. I guess, though, they could put him, or her, in permanent solitary; basically, in a cage. How humane is that?
  3. The pope is assuming that other countries have our level of keeping monsters locked-up. I remember reading about drug cartel jefes who managed to escape from Mexican jails.
  4. The prison population might be none to safe from such monsters–whose humanity has been severely compromised. The pope also seems to assuming that his influence in the outside world ends with incarceration.
    I agree that it should be extremely rare, but doable. We would have to have absolute (or a close to it as is humanly possible) certainty that he, or she, is guilty. Also, the crime would have to be heinous–like the rape and murder of a child, or the slaughter of scores of people.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. If it’s not a de fide statement, I can disagree with him.
 
There will always be new threads on this repeating the same information over and over until the Lord returns.
 
You can separate murderers from the general population without putting them in solitary. We could simply have special prisons to house murderers exclusively. Sure, they would be a danger to each other, but those who live by the sword, die by the sword. We don’t have to actively kill them, and we should even do our best to protect them from each other, but a man who did not respect the lives of others has no grounds to object to living in a society that regards his life as expendable, namely, a prison full of murderers.
 
I am genuinely asking here, is it not possible for someone to know more than the Pope? I mean we have as much access to historical writings, interpretations and teachings. Just thinking that theoretically someone could be more well versed in the subject.
Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t follow guidance when it is appropriate and in line with the magesterium.
But we are also responsible for knowing the teachings of the church.
 
For a topic that has a moratorium, this is getting more comments than I expected. I do think that many people know more than the Pope on most topics. There are people who know more theology and Scripture than he does. He’s not expected to know more about anything. He’s expected to be faithful to the Magesterium, Scripture, and Tradition. He’s not expected to change the Magesterial teaching on capital punishment, or on divorce and remarriage. The Church has seen development on capital punishment but has said that there are situations when it can be used. The Pope can exhort in this matter, as did St. Pope John Paul II, but it not something he can make into a binding part of revelation.
 
cardinalsrule said:
I think the Holy Father is mistaken is his call for a universal end to capital punishment. There are instances when it is justified.
Click to expand...
This isn’t really a good description of what Pope Francis and the last several popes had in mind.

The inadmissibility of the death penalty is a movement in a right direction. It’s even a small movement from the previous teaching.

The questions that the changes evoke for me are:

If there is a necessity by a legitimate government to kill, within the bounds of the new teaching; is that still considered capital punishment, or is it considered self-defense?

If taking a life in self defense is a violation of a person’s God given human dignity, is a given threat to a person’s life also a violation of that person’s human dignity? If it is, is one a sin, and one is not? Where does capital punishment fall in the retributive act of self defense and a inmate who makes threats and acts on them?
 
Last edited:
The recent change to the Catechism was unnecessary. Everyone already knew that the Church was heavily invested in trying to prevent executions. The previous Catechism statement made it clear. Your average Catholic would read it and think, “ok, the death penalty is allowed, but should be used rarely, if at all.” Now there are questions about, “was the Church wrong? is it intrinsically evil? can it ever be used again?” Nobody knows. The new change seemed more to be an exercise in changing the Catechism to test the waters for forthcoming changes to other teachings. Perhaps the plan is to incrementally move away from previous teachings, and after a certain amount of years it can be considered “development of doctrine.”
 
cardinalsrule said:
Knowing that his, or her, life is soon to end would be a strong motivation for repentance. A life sentence without the possibility of parole is not.
Click to expand...
Our actions, though, are oriented towards their destruction, not their redemption. Sure, they might repent, but some repent in prison as well, so I would say that our actions should focus on what is better.
cardinalsrule said:
in permanent solitary; basically, in a cage. How humane is that?
Click to expand...
Even prior to Pope Francis’s change, the Church was clearly against the death penalty except as an absolute last resort where human life could not reasonably be protected unless they died. In other words, solitary confinement, while not ideal, is still more respectful of the human person than killing them.

Furthermore, your treatment of killing another person as being “more humane” is incredibly dangerous. That’s a similar line of logic used to justify things like assisted suicide.
cardinalsrule said:
The pope is assuming that other countries have our level of keeping monsters locked-up. I remember reading about drug cartel jefes who managed to escape from Mexican jails.
Click to expand...
Or calling us to seek bringing other countries to a point where they can do it. Part of the issue with the old wording is that, while it was in line with Pope Francis, also didn’t address the complacency many in places like the United States had towards tolerating the death penalty. Our goal should be conditions for its total abolition, which is what Pope Francis is clearly calling us to.
ConcernedConvert said:
I am genuinely asking here, is it not possible for someone to know more than the Pope? I mean we have as much access to historical writings, interpretations and teachings. Just thinking that theoretically someone could be more well versed in the subject.
Click to expand...
Whether or not it is possible, I don’t get the feeling people posting this stuff do, even if they think they do.
1Lord1Faith said:
If there is a necessity by a legitimate government to kill, within the bounds of the new teaching; is that still considered capital punishment, or is it considered self-defense?
Click to expand...
As far as I’m aware, self-defense should always prefer a non-lethal means of defense. Lethal means should only be used accidentally or when non-lethal means aren’t enough.
bobperk said:
Everyone already knew that the Church was heavily invested in trying to prevent executions.
Click to expand...
Except 53% of Catholics, up from 43% in 2016, support capital punishment, and many of the states with the highest Catholic population have it in law. (Source) Perhaps people just aren’t reading their catechisms, but it’s still a stretch to say “everyone” knew that the Church was against it. In fact, a considerable amount of the outrage seems to indicate people didn’t.
 
ZMystiCat said:
Except 53% of Catholics, up from 43% in 2016, support capital punishment, and many of the states with the highest Catholic population have it in law.
Click to expand...
Well, just supporting it doesn’t mean that someone thinks it should be used in every case where it is / was allowed.
 
bobperk said:
Well, just supporting it doesn’t mean that someone thinks it should be used in every case where it is / was allowed.
Click to expand...
I think it at least shows a complacency that wasn’t good. As I already mentioned, the old wording didn’t make clear enough that the Church didn’t just see it as a last resort but sought to replace it entirely. Sure, that could be easily concluded by the old wording, but majority support for it and some of the outrage at Francis’s change would seem to imply it wasn’t clear enough.
 
ZMystiCat said:
Except 53% of Catholics, up from 43% in 2016, support capital punishment, and many of the states with the highest Catholic population have it in law.
Click to expand...
I thought it was a prudential decision not an absolutely binding one such as opposition to abortion.
 
AlNg said:
I thought it was a prudential decision not an absolutely binding one such as opposition to abortion.
Click to expand...
While the Church permitted capital punishment under certain circumstances, it was also clear that it was only seen as a last resort and a means whose reasonable end should be sought. As far as I know, that part was non-negotiable, but some seem to have taken the occasional permission and become complacent with it, as if our goal was to stick to the status-quo rather than seek something better.
 
ZMystiCat said:
as if our goal was to stick to the status-quo rather than seek something better.
Click to expand...
No. I think that people who favor capital punishment under certain circumstances believe that having capital punishment is generally better in the end than not having it.
 
Exactly what I was thinking. If anything it shows that Catholics are supporting teachings of the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top