The “never” or “inadmissible” is disturbing, but perhaps he feels we can always deal with offenders, no matter what they’ve done, in a more humane way? Unless of course, we are acting in self-defense.
It does call my attention that you find " inadmissible" disturbing…Let s check.
trust me I looked up the word in Latin to show it to you!So there are no moral absolutes? Morality changes with the culture? Isn’t that the same excuse used to justify homosexual marriage.
I did not intend what I said to be taken as being against moral absolutes. I was only saying that the Pope was making a current prudential judgement as opposed to making an absolute statement. His “nowadays” in what he said makes his “never” not an absolutely never. Instead, it is only a never “nowadays.” So it was not an absolute statement against capital punishment.
I am more concerned where he says Christians have an obligation to fight for its abolition. That seems to remove it from the realm of prudential judgment. The ironic part is I oppose the Death Penalty in all cases.
Okay then. If it’s in Latin, then it’s authoritative enough for me.I know…
I wish I could help out here… I am trying to share what I know,and not to force what I don 't…
Again my problem is he comment that ALL Christians must work to abolish it. That goes beyond previous Popes expressing their opinion it is wrong. It seems that Pope Francis is not leaving any room for prudential judgment in this matter. I cant see how this, if properly reported, does not constitute a change in Catholic teaching
I wish I could help out here… I am trying to share what I know,and not to force what I don 't…
The word inadmissible did not pose any difficulty to understand .,for me.
If you ask,the word “abolish” has a legislative / legal connotation
Papal States abolished death penalty in 1969 . As I have already said,had it been inmoral( and I am using your terms here) any of the following Popes would have clearly stated it was. None of them did. And yet all of them insisted it should be abolished,banned.
I found these from Pope JPII and Pope Benedict. Please read them and see that Francis in in line with them.
vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010621_death-penalty_en.html
ccky.org/2011/11/pope-benedict-xvi-praises-efforts-to-ban-the-death-penalty/
Tell me how it sounds now,Estesbob if you want.
Peace.
I do not see how an invitation to Christianity to consider something we consider best today constitutes a change in teaching. But in case I am still misunderstanding you,I will not go any further ,it could be annoying for you
. I can understand that…It is a crying shame that this issue of all things has shaken your faith. I honestly pray that you experience spiritual assurance in the near future. Does it not help hearing the experience of others from around the world who’ve never lived in a system of law that used the death penalty? When I contemplate that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, it just means that there are possible circumstances where it is necessary for the welfare of a community. It doesn’t mean that it can never be generally opposed or abolished. To me it has the nature of fire. God gave man fire to serve an important role in his welfare. Cooking, warmth etc. At one time in ancient history fire was ritually revered has having a divine merit.
But therein lies the problem… if you ABOLISH legitimate recourse to the death penalty, what happens when that “possible circumstance where it is necessary for the welfare of a community” arises?
It doesn’t matter how one rationalizes changing church teaching. Once it’s changed the churches credibility is, unfortunately, on the line . What other teaching should I take with a grain of salt because the culture may overtake our “flawed” understanding of morality ?
Sounds a lot like we are slipping into situation ethics Morality changes based upon the current circumstances . Not much room for the Spirit in such a view In light of 2000 years of unchanging teaching I must reluctantly come to the conclusion that whatv the Pope reportedly said is simply wrong, Of course, it make it harder for us to defend church teaching as it has given the impression that the church will indeed change it to teaching based upon the morals of the current culture. I love Pope Francis and believe he truly is the vicar of Christ so I really wonder if I have misunderstood what he said or what he meant was lost in translation
If something major happened to society that made the due process and incarceration of criminals generally unsafe… the conditions that permit legitimate defense would justify its return perhaps. St Augustine referred to capital punishment in terms of either a general law or a special commission for a short time. I would see the killing of Osama bin Laden as this type of commission. I know the official statement was that they intended to take him alive… but I seriously doubt that that would have been wise and prudent. Any country and those involved in a judicial process against the man, would have been seriously vulnerable to terrorist annihilation.
I’m with you, estesbob; it is somewhat disturbing to hear these sorts of words coming from the Pope. If the Church is indeed infallible when, in her official capacity, she promulgates certain teachings, then either the Pope is in error here (in which case, the Holy Spirit will prevent him from codifying his opinion as Church teaching in an official manner), or there is something that you and I are misunderstanding about exactly what it is about this teaching that is somehow in continuity with traditional teaching. I would not have a crisis of faith just yet. This would be a bit more serious if it were coming from an ecumenical council in definitive language or an ex cathedra (or even near-ex-cathedra) statement in clear, definitive language from the pope himself.
You have got to be kidding yourself if you think that a society that has taken the death penalty ‘off the books’ could easily and promptly re-instate it should the need arise. Should we had the opportunity to take Osama Bin Laden alive, and there was no recourse to the death penalty, do you seriously think we could ‘successfully’ hold him until the law was changed to re-instate it before he had either escaped, orchestrated other atrocities from within prison, or whatever other evils you suspect could have happened since you yourself thought that it may not have been a good idea to take him alive. That’s precisely why it should stay on the books in law.
You’re saying that this new position reflects a ‘flawed’ understanding of morality but what it actually does show the wider scope of the teaching on capital punishment. What was implicit in the teaching before is now explicit and that is that the sentence of death in penal justice is permitted if that is the only way of serving the common good which is essentially to promote the dignity of the human being. The Church has never regarded the act as a positive command essential for justice anywhere anytime. It is a defense that can be legitimately invoked as a general rule under certain extreme circumstances but when alternative less gruesome measures are available it is wrong to invoke it on a principle alone. It can be explicitly seen as ‘conditional’ now in the light of human advancements, but was always implicit to the teaching.
The comment made by the Vatican on the event of OBLs death really demonstrates why there are serious problems with the death penalty mentality in the US. The crazy rejoicing in the streets was quiet uncomfortable to watch on tv.