Vatican City, Feb 7, 2007 / 06:30 pm (CNA).- Made public today was a declaration of the Holy See delivered during the course of a world congress on the death penalty, held in Paris, France from February 1st to the 3rd.
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=8583“The Paris congress,” reads the French-language text, “is being celebrated at a time in which, because of recent executions, the campaign against the death penalty is facing new and disquieting challenges. Public opinion has become sensitized and has expressed its concern for a more effective recognition of the inalienable dignity of human beings, and of the universality and integrity of human rights, beginning with the right to life.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
What hubris!Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
The main issue in this teaching of the Church is “Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.””I am in full agreement with the Vatican on this. The death penalty is nearly impossible to justify in this modern age. Abolish the death penalty now!
God tells Abraham to go sacrifice his kid too, but that doesn’t make God pro-choice.The Church doesn’t teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, like abortion or other assaults on human life. God even commands the death penalty in Genesis 9:6 and the death penalty is incorporated into the Mosaic law, although with very rigorous and limiting criteria in applying it.
Saying that it should be used when you can lock someone up in isolation in a maximum security facility for life doesn’t fly with me. What is the chance of their escape in those situations?It’s not a question of whether the death penalty is right or wrong, but a question of whether it’s truly necessary in modern cultures to protect society. There can be legitimate debate between Catholics about the application and use of the death penalty because the Church hasn’t completely ruled out its use.
Saying that it should be used when you can lock someone up in isolation in a maximum security facility for life doesn’t fly with me. What is the chance of their escape in those situations?God tells Abraham to go sacrifice his kid too, but that doesn’t make God pro-choice.{/quote]
What??? If you’ll recall, God told Abraham to stop – He didn’t intend for Abraham to kill Isaac – it was a test to see how much Abraham really trusted and believed in God and also a beautiful picture of what God would do in sending His Son to die on a cross for our sins.
Not in the slightest, but it’s more morally reprehensible to kill another in cold blood.You really think locking someone up in isolation for the rest of his life is kinder than the death penalty? That would likely drive someone insane.
Okay, that was perhaps a poor analogy choice. How about all the armies that were slayed in the name of God? How about all the followers of Baal that were killed because God has a jealous streak?What??? If you’ll recall, God told Abraham to stop – He didn’t intend for Abraham to kill Isaac – it was a test to see how much Abraham really trusted and believed in God and also a beautiful picture of what God would do in sending His Son to die on a cross for our sins.
No, because the Church itself allows for it.When the Church’s positions are politically conservative by US standards, people come out and say the Church is right and we must follow it or else we’re cafeteria Catholics. But wait, when the Church propagates a viewpoint seen as liberal in the Catechism, the Catechism is described as “What hubris!”
It’s pretty clear to me that if you support the DP that makes you a cafeteria Catholic. Since we know the Church’s position on this, and it’s an issue of life, wouldn’t supporting the DP be mortal sin?
**
Execution Of Criminals**
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent.
This is the universal teaching of the Church, that there are some circumstances where the Death Penalty is not only permissable, but it is an act of Justice.The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
You need to read more about this issue. This teaching is neither infallible nor ordinary but merely prudential, which means that although we should give it serious consideration, we are not bound to consent to it.It’s pretty clear to me that if you support the DP that makes you a cafeteria Catholic.
Obviously not as Vatican City had the death penalty on its books until 1969. It has been the consistent teaching of the Church since Paul that the state has the moral right to execute criminals.Since we know the Church’s position on this, and it’s an issue of life, wouldn’t supporting the DP be mortal sin?
PLEASE, read this article by Avery Cardinal Dulles on Capital Punishment.When the Church’s positions are politically conservative by US standards, people come out and say the Church is right and we must follow it or else we’re cafeteria Catholics. But wait, when the Church propagates a viewpoint seen as liberal in the Catechism, the Catechism is described as “What hubris!”
It’s pretty clear to me that if you support the DP that makes you a cafeteria Catholic. Since we know the Church’s position on this, and it’s an issue of life, wouldn’t supporting the DP be mortal sin?
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - **
**- the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”**without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself **
As Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said last year, after signing the law which abolished the death penalty:Someone has to tell the truth no one wants to hear.
That statement does not fit Catholic Teaching. Capital punishment is not an inherent evil. It is allowable in certain circumstances and the Church recognizes this fact.As Philippines President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said last year, after signing the law which abolished the death penalty:
“We yield to the high moral imperative dictated by God to walk away from capital punishment.”
I don’t know, but you bring up a VERY good point about how “the line to the cafeteria forms to both the left AND the right.”When the Church’s positions are politically conservative by US standards, people come out and say the Church is right and we must follow it or else we’re cafeteria Catholics. But wait, when the Church propagates a viewpoint seen as liberal in the Catechism, the Catechism is described as “What hubris!”
It’s pretty clear to me that if you support the DP that makes you a cafeteria Catholic. Since we know the Church’s position on this, and it’s an issue of life, wouldn’t supporting the DP be mortal sin?
It may form on both sides, but not over this issue, at least until the Church makes a definitve moral declaration without hedge. Do not look for this soon, because to so so would reverse centuries of moral teaching on the proper application of the death penalty. Until then, there will be left room for prudential judgement.I don’t know, but you bring up a VERY good point about how “the line to the cafeteria forms to both the left AND the right.”
Not when one holds to what the Church actually teaches on the subject, not what one’s politics say it isI don’t know, but you bring up a VERY good point about how “the line to the cafeteria forms to both the left AND the right.”
Execution Of Criminals
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.
We know that the Church cannot change morality itself. What was Moral in Aquinas’s time, and was moral during Trent, remains moral now.The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
- The purpose of punishment in secular courts is fourfold: the rehabilitation of the criminal, the protection of society from the criminal, the deterrence of other potential criminals, and retributive justice.
- Just retribution, which seeks to establish the right order of things, should not be confused with vindictiveness, which is reprehensible.
- Punishment may and should be administered with respect and love for the person punished.
- The person who does evil may deserve death. According to the biblical accounts, God sometimes administers the penalty himself and sometimes directs others to do so.
- Individuals and private groups may not take it upon themselves to inflict death as a penalty.
- The State has the right, in principle, to inflict capital punishment in cases where there is no doubt about the gravity of the offense and the guilt of the accused.
- The death penalty should not be imposed if the purposes of punishment can be equally well or better achieved by bloodless means, such as imprisonment.
- The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.
- Persons who specially represent the Church, such as clergy and religious, in view of their specific vocation, should abstain from pronouncing or executing the sentence of death.
‘Cafeteria’ Catholism occurs when the Catholic disagrees with ANY of these points.
- Catholics, in seeking to form their judgment as to whether the death penalty is to be supported as a general policy, or in a given situation, should be attentive to the guidance of the pope and the bishops. Current Catholic teaching should be understood, as I have sought to understand it, in continuity with Scripture and tradition.