Church Teaching on Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but in the 13th century they didn’t have all the systems that we have today. Now there’s no more so much need to put people to death in order to protect the common good, we have better alternatives. In the 13th century, it was often the safest possibility, even the only possibility. It was even more so in the Ancient world, when even permament detention didn’t exist because it wasn’t actually feasible in most cases (remember, permanent detention was first introduced by the Church in canon law during the Middle Ages ).
 
Last edited:
Are there no other ways available today for achieving that end?
 
Well, I agree. So, do you agree that the death penalty, even thought a licit option, is not an absolute requirement?
 
Last edited:
Even in first world countries such as the United States we have terrible problems with violent crimes rape etc. from those who are already incarcerated.
 
LeonardDeNoblac said:
Now there’s no more so much need to put people to death in order to protect the common good, we have better alternatives.
Click to expand...
“Common good” is obviously a valid term, but it can easily be misunderstood. Unfortunately it is often believed that it means nothing more than physical safety, which is an implication that could be taken from your comment. If justice is understood as an aspect of “the common good” then the “need to put people to death” really doesn’t change from time to time inasmuch as the justness of the punishment doesn’t change.
It was even more so in the Ancient world, when even permament detention didn’t exist because it wasn’t actually feasible in most cases (remember, permanent detention was first introduced by the Church in canon law during the Middle Ages ).
Click to expand...
The Middle Ages were quite a while ago so the “we don’t need it for safety now” is not a very compelling argument. Besides, there really have been a number of ways to put people away safely for a long time…for a long time.

…but if he has fallen several times into the same fault, he is to be condemned to permanent imprisonment or to the galleys, at the decision of the appointed judge. (5th Lateran Council, 1515)
 
Because that is what comes with maturing faith. We become more and more deeply aware of our unworthiness before the majesty God and there comes an increasing gratitude for Gods mercy in regards to our sinful state.
 
Passages like that served a purpose in the past but illuminated by Christ saving love for us and His Sacrifice, we are much more aware of our unworthiness having ‘seen the light’ and His mercy is so important to us that we will be judged on that on the Last Day.

Matt 18 The Parable of the Unmerciful Servant

21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother or sister who sins against me? Up to seven times?”

22 Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.[a]

23 “Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24 As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. 25 Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26 “At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27 The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28 “But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins.[c] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

29 “His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it back.’

30 “But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31 When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32 “Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33 Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34 In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

35 “This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.”
 
Last edited:
Presumption is the antithesis of gratitude. Presumption is a false sense of entitlement marked by selfishness and superiority towards others. That’s the essence of the story of the Unmerciful servant.
 
The whole point of a living Magisterium. A permanent Apostolic seat, is the need for the Church to minister to every age by gauging what the people need in the different conditions.

Scripture talks about a difference between solid food and milk. Different nourishment for different times. That’s what the Church if for.
 
🤦‍♀️ The function of the living Magisterium is to reaffirm and explicate past teachings, not to change them substantially. Development of doctrine only means that things which were implicit before become explicit later.
[/quote]

Bear in mind that it’s a uniquely US faction that thinks the teaching on the death penalty is a ‘substantial change’. The rest of the world has accepted that abolition of the death penalty was implicitly required if it does more harm than good to the common welfare.
 
The doctrine hasn’t changed (it is impossible for a valid pope to teach heresy in his ordinary and universal magisterial capacity ). This is only the pope’s prudential judgment, wich is not infallible in any case. He simply thinks that now the application of the death penalty would do more harm than good, not that it is intrinsically wrong. He could be right, he could be wrong, but we have to respect the pope’s judgment, if there is no legitimate reason for not doing so.
 
Last edited:
I stated that capital punishment has the value of expiation of sin. You make a comment on “Kill a bakers dozen for a one repent return”. That is a textbook case of the strawman argument, as I learned during my legal studies, and it would not hold up in a courtroom.
 
Adam and Eve are Adam and Eve. This is not them.
I say this because the genetic evidence brings this into question. And of course we are not a FUNDEMENTALISM religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top