Pope Francis Calls for Abolition of Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter TMC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
exnihilo said:
I agree that within the commandment is a value for life. It doesn’t seem very difficult to express this distinction while using the commandment as part of a case against capital punishment. I realize often it is difficult or practically impossible to be absolutely precise, but this doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Arguments with atheists, agnostics or even fallen away Christians often revolve around them seeing huge contradictions in Christian teaching. This doesn’t help. In fact it gives me great sympathy for those who don’t want to be part of the Church because they see it as being inconsistent and therefore not holy.
Click to expand...
What it SHOULD be is an invitation to dive further into the theology.

For example, here is the Cathechism of Trent on the 5th Commandment
Execution Of Criminals
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
That is why there is no inherent contradiction. The purpose of the 5th Commandment is the preservation of human life. As such, as noted, the repression of violence against others brings about the security of life. Thus the use of Capital Punishment is sometimes an act of obedience to the 5th Commandment.
 
Brendan said:
What is ‘good of the community’ or ‘preservation of law and order’ in objective terms?
Click to expand...
These are abstract terms. There have some objective *elements *in them like the protection of society, and the reintegration of released convicts back into society, equality in administration of justice. However, “objective”, “abstract” (the one I throw in) and “prudential” are three separate ideas. None is a synonym of the other.
 
pnewton said:
These are abstract terms. There have some objective *elements *in them like the protection of society, and the reintegration of released convicts back into society, equality in administration of justice. However, “objective”, “abstract” (the one I throw in) and “prudential” are three separate ideas. None is a synonym of the other.
Click to expand...
“Protection of Society” and “reintegration” are objective elements?
 
pnewton said:
Yes.
Click to expand...
So there is an objective state where society is protected? Under what objective definition is ‘protected’ applicable to society. What level of risk is mitigated by this objective protected state that you refer to? 100%?, 99%?

Or that a released felon has been reintegrated into society? What objective definition is used for ‘reintegrated’.
 
Brendan said:
So there is an objective state where society is protected? Under what objective definition is ‘protected’ applicable to society. What level of risk is mitigated by this objective protected state that you refer to? 100%?, 99%?

Or that a released felon has been reintegrated into society? What objective definition is used for ‘reintegrated’.
Click to expand...
dictionary.reference.com/browse/reintegrate

This is a bonus, because I think the word “objective” misses the point. It has nothing to do with prudence.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

Here are synonyms, if you want:
thesaurus.com/browse/objective
thesaurus.com/browse/prudential

Note there is no overlap.
 
pnewton said:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/reintegrate

This is a bonus, because I think the word “objective” misses the point. It has nothing to do with prudence.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

Here are synonyms, if you want:
thesaurus.com/browse/objective
thesaurus.com/browse/prudential

Note there is no overlap.
Click to expand...
So that is your criteria for determining is a felon has been reitegrated into society, when they are combined or united with society?

The second they are released then, are they ‘integrated’ as they have been combined.

And you are correct, ‘objective’ does not deal with prudence. That hence why when the criterea are not objective, the decision is prudential.

You have proved my point.

And I am still waiting to hear what objective level of risk mitigation indicated that the society in ‘protected’. If there is not such a judgement, that judgment too is prudential.
 
"Prison guard killed at Brickeys unit
By The Associated Press

This article was published January 20, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.

BRICKEYS — A convicted murderer stabbed a female guard to death at an east Arkansas prison Friday."

If this convicted murderer would had been given the death penalty for his 1st murder, female guard Sgt. Barbara Easter would not have been stabbed to death by him.

arkansasonline.com/news/2012/jan/20/prison-guard-killed-brickeys-unit/
 
Sword_Brethren said:
"Prison guard killed at Brickeys unit
By The Associated Press

This article was published January 20, 2012 at 3:30 p.m.

BRICKEYS — A convicted murderer stabbed a female guard to death at an east Arkansas prison Friday."

If this convicted murderer would had been given the death penalty for his 1st murder, female guard Sgt. Barbara Easter would not have been stabbed to death by him.

arkansasonline.com/news/2012/jan/20/prison-guard-killed-brickeys-unit/
Click to expand...
Perhaps the Holy Father is not aware of cases like this. What a shame!
 
pnewton said:
I found nothing confusing in what is said. Heck, I could diagram the sentences without ambiguity. But then I do not write “prudential judgment” in the margins of my Catechism If you find it confusing, then why not simply accept what the last three popes have been saying for the last forty years, or simply set aside the political lens?
Click to expand...
The mere fact that you have to state “what the last three popes have been saying for the last forty years” should indicate part of the problem. Forty years is quite a short span when compared to nearly 2000 years. What prompted the change?
 
pnewton said:
I found nothing confusing in what is said. Heck, I could diagram the sentences without ambiguity. But then I do not write “prudential judgment” in the margins of my Catechism If you find it confusing, then why not simply accept what the last three popes have been saying for the last forty years, or simply set aside the political lens?
Click to expand...
Being able to diagram the sentence simply indicates your understanding of the grammatical structure of the sentence, but that does not necessarily render the sentence clearly understandable. And one does not have to write “prudential judgment” in the margins of Catechism to recognize that the statement in the Catechism is one of prudential judgment. You didn’t even answer the question of what criteria is used to determine when a certain government’s corrections system has sufficiently developed as to make the death penalty unnecessary? There are certainly countries who are culturally decades behind those of further developed nations (certainly more than the magic forty years you cite); some arguably centuries behind. Can these governments have legitimate recourse to the death penalty? If not, why not?
 
I respectfully disagree with His Holiness. My belief is that the death penalty is necessary for heinous crimes.
 
We are to listen to the *Church, *not one man in it, even if he is the pope. The pope speaks infallibly only under specific circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top