T
Teelynn
Guest
Yes it seems that way. I do know Pope St. John Paul did not agree with the death penalty either, but he did uphold Church teaching.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
E
estesbob
Guest
As does Pope Francis. Nowhere has Pope Francis or any other member of the magistrium said that a Catholic cannot support the death penalty. It would be easy enough for him to do so . instead, as a good pastor, he expresses his opinion that there are no circumstances where it is appropriate - however Catholics who are grounded in their faith know that we are not bound by every utterance of the pope . We rely on the three pillars of church teachings . Scripture , tradition and the teachings of the magisterium . All three of those allow for the death penalty and have for the last 2000 years . The question is not whether the death penalty can be used , the question is when . The last three popes have made it clear that in their opinion it is never justified. But none of them said that their opinion was binding upon all Catholics -in fact one of them went out of his way to say it was not.Yes it seems that way. I do know Pope St. John Paul did not agree with the death penalty either, but he did uphold Church teaching.
S
SWolf
Guest
I think we’re on the same page.I think our view of what constitutes a moral life has changed over the centuries. I think the changes we have seen, our view of slavery for example, have generally created better societies and made us more aware of our obligations as Christians. This doesn’t make us more moral, necessarily, but it does make us more aware of what constitutes morality. Your point about the death penalty is one I can agree with. The death penalty is no longer permissable precisely because our social and justice systems have developed to the point that such a penalty is no longer necessary to protect society from immediate danger. This is what the Church has said in the Catechism. It is because we are safer that there is no excuse for utilizing the death penalty in our age. If it is easy to be against the death penaltynow, it is because society has changed for the better and we have become more aware of our moral obligations.
That’s the point of saying that the morality of an action, like criminal punishment, is prudential based on the realities of the society. It’s not a blanket condemnation like abortion. We are now prosperous and stable enough as a society where some sorts of harsher punishment can be done away with.
I don’t believe people administering the death penalty, including some saints like Thomas More, were monsters, or sinning in administering these punishments. Nor were lords overseeing the serfs necessarily brutal and unjust, though in many cases they were. It would be wrong to say they were facilitating an intrinsic evil. The southern slave owners, however, certainly were facilitating an intrinsic evil.
If ever, God forbid, society delves into chaos, the prudential morality of the above scenarios will be much more ambiguous.
M
Melchior_1
Guest
Catholicism - where everything is written down, so if there’s questions you can get answers It’s what separates us from Protestants. When in doubt, go to the source, in this case the Catechism.
Pope Francis said nothing that contradicted the Catechism.
Next topic?
Pope Francis said nothing that contradicted the Catechism.
Next topic?
E
estesbob
Guest
Amen! Lets talk about whether its OK to read Harry Potter books…Catholicism - where everything is written down, so if there’s questions you can get answers It’s what separates us from Protestants. When in doubt, go to the source, in this case the Catechism.
Pope Francis said nothing that contradicted the Catechism.
Next topic?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Christ’s point was about the severity of scandal. Do you really believe he actually sanctioned killing of an individual? It’s a bad translation if this is the case.You mean the same Jesus Christ who actually sanctioned the DP in Matthew 18:6 where he said this:
E
estesbob
Guest
Yes-for himself. As Pope we should take his words very seriously. But he can not change 2,000 years of Church teaching on the Death Penalty.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Well that blogger brought all the ‘eye for eyers’ out of the wood work to be sure!
P
pnewton
Guest
The subjunctive mode here does not mean he sanctioned the DP, any more than he sanctioned abortion when he said it would be better if Judas had never been born. If he did one he did both. Since he did not do the latter, he could not have done the former.You mean the same Jesus Christ who actually sanctioned the DP in Matthew 18:6 where he said this:
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Pope StJPII in Evangelium Vitae clearly indicates that the new attitude towards the death penalty comes out of a deeper sense of the dignity of a person and consequently a sign of Gods will for man…Why we can be rid of many of these punishments is not because we are more morally enlightened, but because we have it easy.
This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society….
S
SWolf
Guest
St Thomas More put four people to death for obstinate heresy.Pope StJPII in Evangelium Vitae clearly indicates that the new attitude towards the death penalty comes out of a deeper sense of the dignity of a person and consequently a sign of Gods will for man…
This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society….
Did he facilitate an intrinsic evil, or was it a prudential punishment based on the circumstances of the time?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
There is a Protestant version of St Thomas More that isn’t very complimentary but undoubtedly he shared in prejudices and politics of the time that we would find completely unacceptable today. However, in all historical studies, it is considered un-academic to treat of the past using the standards of today.St Thomas More put four people to death for obstinate heresy.
Did he facilitate an intrinsic evil, or was it a prudential punishment based on the circumstances of the time?
It’ll no doubt be the case that in another 500 years our growth in understanding of the human person will result in different practices and attitudes again. It’s pointless speculating about how that will look but we can be certain of the phenomenon continuing, by history as we know it so far.
(As an aside, I am a descendant of Thomas More according to family legend. A great aunty of mine… a mercy sister… was permitted to view a part of his head which was on display in the Tower of London some time during the 1970’s.)
P
ProVobis
Guest
Or maybe we don’t see heresy as being the worser of the two evils involved anymore.St Thomas More put four people to death for obstinate heresy.
Did he facilitate an intrinsic evil, or was it a prudential punishment based on the circumstances of the time?
P
pnewton
Guest
I go with, neither of the above. He was a canonized martyr though, so none of his actions or beliefs at the time bear any significant weight on the issue today.St Thomas More put four people to death for obstinate heresy.
Did he facilitate an intrinsic evil, or was it a prudential punishment based on the circumstances of the time?
S
SWolf
Guest
St Thomas More’s understanding of morality was based on the Catholic teaching of the time, which clearly stated the death penalty could be used to defend the common good. If the death penalty is actually always and without reservation objectively evil, the Church taught error regarding faith and morals, something the Holy Spirit is supposed to protect the Church from.There is a Protestant version of St Thomas More that isn’t very complimentary but undoubtedly he shared in prejudices and politics of the time that we would find completely unacceptable today. However, in all historical studies, it is considered un-academic to treat of the past using the standards of today.
It’ll no doubt be the case that in another 500 years our growth in understanding of the human person will result in different practices and attitudes again. It’s pointless speculating about how that will look but we can be certain of the phenomenon continuing, by history as we know it so far.
Awesome!(As an aside, I am a descendant of Thomas More according to family legend. A great aunty of mine… a mercy sister… was permitted to view a part of his head which was on display in the Tower of London some time during the 1970’s.)
E
estesbob
Guest
So why wouldn’t that apply to other issues like abortion and homosexual marriage? And if a Catholic cannot support it why didnt the Pope say so ? For the last 2000 years has the church is been dead wrong about the death penalty ? Wouldn’t the Holy Spirit have imparted that to the church anyway regardless of the current cultures understanding of the dignity of man ? Surely morality doesn’t change based upon our understanding of it?Pope StJPII in Evangelium Vitae clearly indicates that the new attitude towards the death penalty comes out of a deeper sense of the dignity of a person and consequently a sign of Gods will for man…
This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society….
L
LongingSoul
Guest
“If the death penalty is actually always and without reservation objectively evil”… is a strawman. I say the death penalty is a sentence and not in itself good or evil. It is an act subject to the fonts of morality. In the past it was a moral recourse in penal justice. Today, it does not serve a just purpose and in fact, feeds into the culture of death. The real problem in this discussion is those that believe that the death penalty is intrinsically good or holy. That it can never be wrong… its just a matter of personal taste. That is an erroneous belief.St Thomas More’s understanding of morality was based on the Catholic teaching of the time, which clearly stated the death penalty could be used to defend the common good. If the death penalty is actually always and without reservation objectively evil, the Church taught error regarding faith and morals, something the Holy Spirit is supposed to protect the Church from.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Some acts are intrinsically evil like abortion. They can never be approved of. Some acts like the death sentence are permissible if they serve the common good in the administration of justice. The pope has said that nowadays the death penalty is inadmissible because it is not serving the order of justice and is harming mans grasp of human dignity.So why wouldn’t that apply to other issues like abortion and homosexual marriage? And if a Catholic cannot support it why didnt the Pope say so ? For the last 2000 years has the church is been dead wrong about the death penalty ? Wouldn’t the Holy Spirit have imparted that to the church anyway regardless of the current cultures understanding of the dignity of man ? Surely morality doesn’t change based upon our understanding of it?
I’m to the point, that I just don’t get you guys. I don’t get why this is so confusing to you.
S
SWolf
Guest
Sounds like there’s agreement.Some acts are intrinsically evil like abortion. They can never be approved of. Some acts like the death sentence are permissible if they serve the common good in the administration of justice.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.