The catechesm, which JPII promulgated, speaks nothing about a moral objection to the death penalty. On the contrary it upholds it as a right and duty of the state.
2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.[67]
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
I think your out of touch with catholic teaching to have a moral objection to executing the guilty. I understand that people, such as JPII, can have a problem with how and when it is adminstered but a moral objection to the principle of capital punishment puts you in opposition to catholic teaching. I understand why you have such a problem with violence against abortionists. You’re almost a pacifist.
Woah, me a pacifist. An American Soldier, who defend the United States of American against all enemies foreign and domestic.
I read those paras from the Catechism but the death penalty should rarely be used.
Let me point something out from the Catechism:
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."
Furthermore, John Paul the Great said,
“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999)
Now. The Catechism was written in the mid 1990s. Yet, John Paul held a more traditional opposition to the death penalty. Does it make him any different than me?
I agree. I don’t support attacks on clinics but I can sympathize with their intent. To blame them for the failure of the pro-life movement, and put all that blame on “fundamentalists” is simply absurd. Truth be told, the pro-life movement wouldn’t exist on nearly the level that it does if there were not evangelicals to take up the cause…Way to throw your pro-life brethren under the bus Manny.