Pope calls for end to death penalty out of respect for human dignity

[Pulvis]

Conception to natural death. That is pro-life. Save for self defence and just war, i cannot suport any other taking of life.

 

[Ender]

Implied within your post is that only if there is capital punishment can justice be attained.

No, that’s not what I’m implying; it’s more complicated than that.

And, as I have mentioned numerous times, punishment is always exercised within a historical context where it can only be used insofar as it serves the common good. The just solution is the one that best promotes the common good. And that requires prudential judgment.

Surely, and the church has been quite clear that a punishment (specifically capital punishment) should not be used if its effect overall is harmful. And, yes, the determination of the effects of any act are a judgment about which reasonable people can disagree. If you want to claim that capital punishment should not be used because it is harmful to the society that uses it, that is clearly a reasonable position.

What I am opposing are those arguments put forth that the use of capital punishment is immoral. Saying that its use is ill advised is reasonable, saying that it is immoral is not.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

No, that’s not what I’m implying; it’s more complicated than that.
Surely, and the church has been quite clear that a punishment (specifically capital punishment) should not be used if its effect overall is harmful. And, yes, the determination of the effects of any act are a judgment about which reasonable people can disagree. If you want to claim that capital punishment should not be used because it is harmful to the society that uses it, that is clearly a reasonable position.

What I am opposing are those arguments put forth that the use of capital punishment is immoral. Saying that its use is ill advised is reasonable, saying that it is immoral is not.

Ender

I misread your post as referring to showing clemency to all people at a given time (what JPII suggested for the modern era). My mistake.

 

[Ender]

I misread your post as referring to showing clemency to all people at a given time (what JPII suggested for the modern era). My mistake.

I don’t believe that JPII was advocating universal clemency. Given that his remarks were made in a Jubilee Year address I take them to mean he was suggesting that clemency in that particular year would be “*a sign of sensitivity to their condition.” *In fact, the universal application of clemency in all situations would not be a sign of anything so much as a failure to appreciate the obligations of justice.

Ender

 

[EnglishTeacher]

The only thing is the part about “yes but we would have executed Paul or Augustine” before their conversions!

To that I can just say, “oh well, good thing we didn’t.”

Just a side note: I don’t believe St. Augustine did anything that would have merited the death penalty, either in his time or ours. He had a bit of a wild youth, though nothing out of the ordinary. His Confessions describes him and some of his friends stealing fruit and talks of some struggles with chastity. Then, beginning around age 19, he lived with an unnamed woman for 13 years and had a son by her. He broke off his relationship with this woman when his mother arranged for him to marry a young heiress. (Augustine later broke off this engagement.) The pain of having to end his 13-year relationship with the mother of his son drove him to a brief affair with another woman, which also ended upon his conversion to the Christian faith.

That was basically it. While St. Augustine lived a sinful life before his conversion, it was nowhere near as wicked and dissipated as people seem to believe. Back to the original topic . . .

 

[LongingSoul]

Just a side note: I don’t believe St. Augustine did anything that would have merited the death penalty, either in his time or ours. He had a bit of a wild youth, though nothing out of the ordinary. His Confessions describes him and some of his friends stealing fruit and talks of some struggles with chastity. Then, beginning around age 19, he lived with an unnamed woman for 13 years and had a son by her. He broke off his relationship with this woman when his mother arranged for him to marry a young heiress. (Augustine later broke off this engagement.) The pain of having to end his 13-year relationship with the mother of his son drove him to a brief affair with another woman, which also ended upon his conversion to the Christian faith.

That was basically it. While St. Augustine lived a sinful life before his conversion, it was nowhere near as wicked and dissipated as people seem to believe. Back to the original topic . . .

Though he did hold many heretical views prior to and during his conversion. Had he lived at another time he might have fallen foul of the inquisitions.

 

[Ender]

Though he did hold many heretical views prior to and during his conversion. Had he lived at another time he might have fallen foul of the inquisitions.

Since Augustine was not a Christian, his holding false views would not have been considered heretical.In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. (Modern Catholic Dictionary)
Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

I don’t believe that JPII was advocating universal clemency. Given that his remarks were made in a Jubilee Year address I take them to mean he was suggesting that clemency in that particular year would be “*a sign of sensitivity to their condition.” *In fact, the universal application of clemency in all situations would not be a sign of anything so much as a failure to appreciate the obligations of justice.

Ender

I don’t think he was advocating universal clemency for all times. But I do think he was for modern times, based on his other numerous appeals to abolish the death penalty, unrelated to the Jubilee

 

[FAB]

I’m pro life, pro death penalty. I’m sticking to it.

A catholic needs to do an examination of conscience in this way of thinking. Both are taking a life, the death penalty does non of which those claims it does. it’s for revenge, it’s own sin.

Deacon Frank

 

[otjm]

I agree that capital punishment is not inherently immoral. One of the reasons I think it is up there with the other life issues, at least in America, is because I’m not aware of any individual case in America where the application of the death penalty is justified.

In fact, I think it is nearly impossible for our country to apply the death penalty justly, at least not as long as we have alternatives other than death. I think we ought to frame and pass a law or amendment making the death penalty illegal, with an exceptional clause permitting it in cases where a criminal cannot be stopped in any other way.

That in part may be because you are not acquainted with the facts of some of the cases which have resulted in the death penalty. Many cases are about on the level of ISIS’ burning of the Jordanian pilot.

There is also the issue of the safety of other prisiones; they may have committed crimes and are imprisoned, but there are plenty of murders within the walls of the prison.

And not all of those murders are of other prisoners; some are of the prison staff (and having a son-in-law who is a prison guard, I am somewhat sensitive to the issue.

Texas just executed an individual who, along with 6 other escapees, went on a rampage which ended with their killing a police officer; and they did so in an apparent execution style.

So while John Paul 2 posited that modern methods of imprisoning almost eliminate executions in terms of others safety, I am not particularly in agreement.

And having sat on juries, as well as having tried cases, I am aware that our system of justice is far from perfect. When totally innocent people have been convicted of murder based on “circumstantial evidence”, only later to be shown to not have committed the crime, then we need to take a really long look at the matter.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

A catholic needs to do an examination of conscience in this way of thinking. Both are taking a life, the death penalty does non of which those claims it does. it’s for revenge, it’s own sin.

Deacon Frank

 

[LongingSoul]

Since Augustine was not a Christian, his holding false views would not have been considered heretical.In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. (Modern Catholic Dictionary)
Ender

Whatever the charge there were atheist and pagans executed alongside the apostates.

 

[pnewton]

A catholic needs to do an examination of conscience in this way of thinking. Both are taking a life, the death penalty does non of which those claims it does. it’s for revenge, it’s own sin.

Deacon Frank

I would say rather if it is for revenge, it is its own sin. Having walked both sides of this issue, I can tell most here do not advocate the death penalty out of any sense of revenge.

I appreciate what you said about examining one’s conscience to see if there is any desire for vengeance. I would add that even in a clean conscience, there should be an attempt to understand the mind of the Church better on this issue.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

FAB;12737421:

A catholic needs to do an examination of conscience in this way of thinking. Both are taking a life, the death penalty does non of which those claims it does. it’s for revenge, it’s own sin.

Deacon Frank

I would say rather if it is for revenge, it is its own sin. Having walked both sides of this issue, I can tell most here do not advocate the death penalty out of any sense of revenge.

I appreciate what you said about examining one’s conscience to see if there is any desire for vengeance. I would add that even in a clean conscience, there should be an attempt to understand the mind of the Church better on this issue.

Ok, maybe this is progress.

 

[Ender]

A catholic needs to do an examination of conscience in this way of thinking.

Not unless the church considers it a sin to accept what the church herself teaches.

Both are taking a life…

The church has been very clear that there are cases where taking a life is acceptable. Taking a life may be unfortunate but it is not necessarily sinful.

… the death penalty does none of which those claims it does.

At the very least it satisfies the obligation of justice and can, if accepted by the sinner, entirely expiate his sins.

… it’s for revenge, it’s own sin.

This is pretty judgmental; I would expect better from a deacon. It is also a misunderstanding of punishment…as well as revenge.Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Aquinas)
This is why we read: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” If vengeance was in fact a sin rather than an act of justice one would hardly expect God to engage in it. What is forbidden is not all vengeance, but vengeance taken by the individual. The individual is forbidden to avenge wrongs, but the state is obligated to. That is the meaning of this passage.

Ender

 

[FAB]

Not unless the church considers it a sin to accept what the church herself teaches.
The church has been very clear that there are cases where taking a life is acceptable. Taking a life may be unfortunate but it is not necessarily sinful.
At the very least it satisfies the obligation of justice and can, if accepted by the sinner, entirely expiate his sins.
This is pretty judgmental; I would expect better from a deacon. It is also a misunderstanding of punishment…as well as revenge.Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned. (Aquinas)
This is why we read: “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” If vengeance was in fact a sin rather than an act of justice one would hardly expect God to engage in it. What is forbidden is not all vengeance, but vengeance taken by the individual. The individual is forbidden to avenge wrongs, but the state is obligated to. That is the meaning of this passage.

Ender

Only in one case does the Church say that capital punishment can be used and that is with all other possibilities exhausted (i.e life in prison) and the person is a continuing threat to society. This is an extremely narrow exception and is not the way that capital punished is inflicted or given.
Taking revenge on another is a sin. We as individuals make up the state, so there is no separation.
The Church thinking has evolved on the issue of capital punishment. It teaches to respect life until natural death. Taking a life as a punishment does not meet this requirement. Much has change since the time of Aquinas.
Deacon Frank

 

[Ender]

Only in one case does the Church say that capital punishment can be used and that is with all other possibilities exhausted (i.e life in prison) and the person is a continuing threat to society. This is an extremely narrow exception and is not the way that capital punished is inflicted or given.

This is not quite accurate. This is a restriction given in CCC 2267, but this is far from all the church has to say on the matter, starting with the fact that protection is not the primary objective of punishment. It is not that a person is a threat that justifies capital punishment but the fact that he has committed a great crime. It is retribution for the past crime, not protection from a future one, that justifies his punishment.

Taking revenge on another is a sin. We as individuals make up the state, so there is no separation.

The individual is prohibited from avenging crime; the state is obligated to do so. There is a huge difference between their rights and responsibilities.when Our Lord says: “You have heard that it hath been said of old, an eye for an eye, etc.,” He does not condemn that law, nor forbid a magistrate to inflict the poena talionis, but He condemns the perverse interpretation of the Pharisees, and* forbids in private citizens the desire for and the seeking of vengeance.** For God promulgates the holy law that the magistrate may punish the wicked by the poena talionis; whencethe Pharisees infer that it is lawful for private citizens to seek vengeance* (St. Bellarmine)

The Church thinking has evolved on the issue of capital punishment.

Doctrine can evolve; it cannot reverse itself.*“Solidarity with the past is the very condition of authentic development.” *(Cardinal Dulles)

It teaches to respect life until natural death.

Are you saying the church didn’t respect life until 50 years ago? Because up until then she had never opposed the use of capital punishment.

Taking a life as a punishment does not meet this requirement. Much has change since the time of Aquinas.

Was God wrong when he told us* “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man”, *did he just change his mind?

Ender

 

[FAB]

This is not quite accurate. This is a restriction given in CCC 2267, but this is far from all the church has to say on the matter, starting with the fact that protection is not the primary objective of punishment. It is not that a person is a threat that justifies capital punishment but the fact that he has committed a great crime. It is retribution for the past crime, not protection from a future one, that justifies his punishment.

 

[Ender]

The pope is calling for the end of the death penalty, there doesn’t seem to be a “but” in his call.

“Calling for an end to the death penalty” is not the same as citing a doctrine that prohibits it. His “call” is a suggestion; it is not mandatory to accept it.

He is changing the Catichism, he has the power to do do

He is not changing the catechism nor does he have to power to do so. He has no authority to invent doctrines.

We as the people restrict or approve what punishment is given, at least in a free democracy. The law say in Texas approve the death penalty, California does not.

True. Societies may permit or prohibit capital punishment as they choose. The church allows both positions.

The law of Moses was meant for the people of that time…

The church’s position is not based on the law of Moses but on the word of God that was given to Noah, and that covenant is in force for all time.

The death penalty needs to be classified as cruel and unusual.

To classify it that way is to claim the church supported cruelty for nearly 2000 years before finally getting it right.

Really don’t think that the good Cardinals was talking about issues of taking a life

True, he was talking about the development of doctrine. His comment is applicable in all cases.

Yes, if we are going to defend life, "it must be from Natural birth to natural death " as St. JPII told us.

The church throughout her entire history has identified three instances where life may be lawfully taken.

Genesis 9:5 God Talking to Noah ** I **will demand a accounting for human life. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man"
God, not man, He will have his accounting for all the blood that has been shed in the end.

*"By **man *shall his blood be shed." God apparently expects action on our part.

Remember Cain after killing Able did not receive the death penalty form God. His punishment was a life of banishment. Seems like life in prison fits that first punishment.

There have always been exceptions to the use of capital punishment. More to the point, the church does not refer to this passage as a basis for her doctrine.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

*“By **man ***shall his blood be shed.” God apparently expects action on our part.

Ender

That is a bizarre and scary interpretation of scripture. Let me put this before you. THE CHURCH HAS NEVER ADVOCATED FOR THE USE OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN ITS 2000 YEAR HISTORY.

She has defended the states right to use it against those who claim it is not permitted ever. She has opposed the use of it against those who claim it to be a positive divine command outside of its service to the common good.