Church Teaching on Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The issue that I and many others see with the change made, is that there is a lot of evidence, even in first world countries, that demonstrates that criminals have plenty of opportunity to offend again. Whether it be through escape, after release or while incarcerated.
 
The most consistent crime control remedy is this:
Kill them, and you won’t have more trouble. It’s the only guarantee.
So the " problem" that you state is virtually always the problem. Uncertain vs certain.
If the only consideration is guaranteed, no more problem, there is one way to do it.
We have other considerations. Other values. Human Dignity and human intrinsic Value. The chance for salvation.
These bring risks. Do you want them or not?
 
Your absolutely right. Which is why not every case should automatically be executed. But to state that it is inadmissible due to the reasoning they used isn’t accurate. There are cases where it is within the best interest of others to use the death penalty. The wording of the prior teaching in the Catechism was quite clear and I don’t really understand why the pope needed to elaborate on it further.
 
As St Thomas Aquinas noted, if a criminal will not repent at the prospect of his own death then he will certainly not repent in the face of a lesser punishment like life imprisonment.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider (who is a Theology Professor I should add) also discussed the expiatiory nature of capital punishment for criminals and noted examples of criminals who repented before their execution in his book Christus Vincit.
 
Last edited:
The wording in the prior version of SPJPII was of a sliver of circumstance they basically say doesn’t exist anymore.
This is predominantly a human dignity issue.
I still do not know what inadmissible means. I have lots of courtroom experience. Inadmissible has a very specific meaning. FUNDEMENTALLY, you need a court proceeding to admit evidence at all. I have not seen another definition so who knows?
 
Kill a bakers dozen for a one repent return? In fact add," why not try it, how can it hurt?"
Is that the thinking?
How many repent over time. Like the Red character in Shawshank Redemption. Recall his parole speach? He didn’t even know the young guy who did the killing. He said," I would talk to him." The death penalty condemns Red to hell while he is a different man. Your two experts do not address the myriad of scenarios like Red.
 
Because the death penalty is no longer moral. And moral is the Popes job.
You say I am right and I think you missed something.
The Infanticide of Herod to kill Jesus. It would have worked but for the Angel.
Killing all those babies to make sure you get one. Is that your idea?
 
So the current pope, can now say that something is morally wrong, when in the past it was not morally wrong? That assumes that right and wrong are relative to the times. The prior teaching left the possibility that the death penalty may be necessary and is not morally wrong. Supported through scripture and historical catholic teaching. The new teaching claims it is (inadmissible). So no longer right under any circumstances?
 
Maximus1 said:
Because the death penalty is no longer moral.
Click to expand...
It is simply not possible for morality to change such that something that was once moral can become immoral. Something that is effective and beneficial in one set of circumstances can become ineffective and harmful in another set, but this says nothing at all about its morality, only about the wisdom of employing it in different situations.
And moral is the Popes job.
Click to expand...
If you mean that the pope gets to define what is or is not moral then this represents a grave misunderstanding of his authority.

“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.” (1st Vatican Council)
 
John Henry Neuman thought so yes.
SPJPII seemed to include slavery among the intrinsic evils. If not, effectively they shuffle the chairs a bit and effectively the moral law EVOLVES.
Frankly, I don’t know why the problem.
 
I said what I said. You reworded it.
As of today, the death penalty is immoral.
It really is of no consequence if people before I was born thought it was then.
The world changed. WE EVOLVED. And the circumstances and sensibility of yesterday no longer exist
 
I am thrilled that the Church has matured in her thinking and now teaches against its use. What a blessing!
 
It really is though. We’re they wrong for implementing the death penalty prior to this teaching? We’re those who carried out the death penalty sinning? Has the church been teaching error for the past 2000 years?
If it is wrong now, that implies that it has always been wrong (which goes against historical teaching and scripture).
 
Maximus1 said:
As of today, the death penalty is immoral.
Click to expand...
If it is immoral today then it was immoral for the 2000 years the church endorsed it. Your position would mean the church taught evil as good for virtually her entire existence.
It really is of no consequence if people before I was born thought it was then.
Click to expand...
Thus we dismiss all of Sacred Tradition. You want to eliminate capital punishment so badly you are willing to eliminate one of the pillars of the church?
The world changed. WE EVOLVED. And the circumstances and sensibility of yesterday no longer exist.
Click to expand...
We can evolve, but natural law is unchanging for all time.
 
The revised catechism doesn’t say that the death penalty is immoral, does it?
 
Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.
Divorce was not wrong under Moses law when," MENS HEARTS WERE HARD."
TODAY, it is wrong. You cannot make it right today by arguing it wasn’t wrong then.
Personally, I think Jesus speaks to our evolving.
 
Was natural law the same for all time with divorce.
Jesus never said it was wrong during the time men’s hearts were hard. He never condemned the law of Moses in the past. He said it is wrong now.
I think they tried to make the same argument you are making now, with Jesus then.
We recognize Capital punishment is immoral in the modern world.
You argue," to bad." We have to keep it up because we need to cater to our theory of natural law.
We don’t do it with slavery! SPJPII all but called it intrinsic evil. Massage a few words in perhaps. So people don’t fly off the handle perhaps. He placed it with abortion on his list. And abortion itself had its own circuitous route. At least with ensoulment. Clearly a misconception. Of natural law? Does it matter to the judgment of first trimester kids?
My observation is people clinging to things bad, because ancient people KNEW NOT WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
 
That’s a strawman argument and a from of informal fallacy which does nothing to address the argument presented.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
We recognize Capital punishment is immoral in the modern world.
Click to expand...
No, “we” don’t.
SPJPII all but called it intrinsic evil. … He placed it with abortion on his list.
Click to expand...
Actually, the church was very careful not to equate those two.

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
My observation is people clinging to things bad, because ancient people KNEW NOT WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you recognize that the “ancient people” you speak of includes everyone (including JPII and BXVI) prior to last year, and none of this responds to the objections I raised earlier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top