Pope Francis Calls for Abolition of Death Penalty

[irenaeus1]

Yes exactly - The last 3 popes have condemned the death penalty.

I do not understand how any christian could cling to the belief that the deliberate ending of another human being’s life should be condoned. This surely flies in the face of everything that Christ taught.

Shame on Pope Pius XII for clinging to such a belief.

The Church used to condone slavery, now it doesn’t, none of us would argue that we should enslave people.

The used to condone capital punishment - it is now clear that it no longer does so.

First, the Church never condoned slavery, and it certainly never spoke of slavery as being morally licit. But the Church has, however, taught that capital punishment can be morally licit.

 

[St_Francis]

Most of our Church teaching does not come from infallible statements.

On the one hand, we have the perennial teachings of the Church, none of which condemn the DP in and of itself; and on the other hand, we have no infallible pronouncements condemning the DP. All we have are comments of 3 out of 266 popes.

I do not understand that as soon as there is a teaching that people are not comfortable with, they say it is not an infallible statement, and that they are free to reject it.

Well, I have heard people say that about Humanae Vitae, but HV was based on the *perennial *teaching of the Church. Church Fathers who condemned abc but did not condemn, in fact, upheld and defended CP as a right and potential duty of the State; thus it is clear that there is no infallible statement regarding the immorality of the DP and so what you are saying here does not apply wrt this topic.

Even Pope Benedict said that we could disagree on this topic, in the very same sentence he said one could not morally disagree on the topics of euthanasia and abortion. Admittedly, that was before he was became pope.

 

[TMC]

Please provide a case in point. Thanks.

Usury and EENS has already been discussed. There is also slavery, forced conversions, inquisitions.

 

[TMC]

But neither is the idea that capital punishment is an objective moral evil. The “position of the Church” is not just what is popular in the current day, it’s the consistent teaching over the centuries.

I’m not sure what that even means. The position of the Church is the Church’s current teaching. What else could it be? The current teaching of the Church is clear.

 

[estesbob]

Usury and EENS has already been discussed. There is also slavery, forced conversions, inquisitions.

Slavery was never supported by the Church, nor was forced conversions. Usury is still taught against, the Inquisition was enforced by State courts. In the 400 year run of the inquisition less than 400 people died-all at the hands of the State.

 

[St_Francis]

You seem to suggest there are two kinds of Church teachings - infallible and optional.

No, I don’t. There are Church teachings, which have various sources, and there are ideas which are not teachings of the Church.

The idea that advanced nations do not need to use the DP is not the type of statement which is a teaching at all, much less a teaching of the Church.

That is not true. There are very, very few infallible teachings. The other teachings are not mere opinions. They are authoritative teachings,

There are many teachings (such as the divinity of Christ or the immorality of abortion) to which we must assent as Catholics aside from those statements from the Pope which are deemed infallible. I was not talking about them, since we are talking about an idea held by popes not previously taught in the Church.

The idea that the DP ought not be used in advanced states is neither one of those teachings to which we must assent nor an infallible statement by a Pope, to which we must also assent.

and the teaching on the death penalty is authoritative.

What is the teaching and in what way is it authoritative?

As for Popes contradicting one another, to the extent there is a conflict the current teaching is what is authoritative. What else could possibly be the case?

That is absurd. Either there is a truth, in which case there is a correct answer and only one or none of the popes holding differing opinions is correct, or the contradiction involves some issue which is not doctrinal.

I personally have no issue with Catholics disagreeing with the Church on this or that. I certainly don’t agree with the Church on everything. But to pretend that the Church does not “really” teach something is simply intellectually dishonest. The Church teaches against the death penalty and calls for its abolition.

*The Church does not teach this. *3 out of 266 popes have suggested this.

That is simply undeniable. One can dissent from that teaching, I suppose, but one should not pretend that a particular teaching is optional to avoid admitting that dissent.

As mentioned elsewhere, Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict 16, wrote that “here may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

 

[TMC]

Slavery was never supported by the Church, nor was forced conversions. Usury is still taught against, the Inquisition was enforced by State courts. In the 400 year run of the inquisition less than 400 people died-all at the hands of the State.

Well, I disagree with you on all those points. The Church clearly supported slavery under varying conditions over the centuries, and American dioceses even owned slaves. Its also odd to me that the Church has apologized for things that never happened - why is that? As to usury, it has evolved significantly. The teaching was once that money could never be loaned at interest- today the Church runs a bank.

 

[TMC]

No, I don’t. There are Church teachings, which have various sources, and there are ideas which are not teachings of the Church.

OK, seems to me that you were saying that non-infallible teachings were optional, but I agree with you that they are not.

The idea that advanced nations do not need to use the DP is not the type of statement which is a teaching at all, much less a teaching of the Church.

I don’t remember saying that the teaching was limited to advanced nations.

There are many teachings (such as the divinity of Christ or the immorality of abortion) to which we must assent as Catholics aside from those statements from the Pope which are deemed infallible. I was not talking about them, since we are talking about an idea held by popes not previously taught in the Church.

Do you deny that the Pope has teaching authority? Why is the current Pope, or the previous two, less authoritative than his predecessors?

The idea that the DP ought not be used in advanced states is neither one of those teachings to which we must assent nor an infallible statement by a Pope, to which we must also assent.

Wait, so you’re back to saying that Catholics must only assent to infallible statements? I thought we agreed that all Church teachings were authoritative? Which is it?

What is the teaching and in what way is it authoritative?

I hope this is not a serious question. It is in the catechism, which is absolutely authoritative. The Pope’s repeated comments are his teaching on how to apply the catechism, which is also authoritative.

That is absurd. Either there is a truth, in which case there is a correct answer and only one or none of the popes holding differing opinions is correct, or the contradiction involves some issue which is not doctrinal.

I am not sure what you are calling absurd. I said that to the extent there is a conflict, the Church’s teachings are the Church’s current teachings. Not sure how that could be absurd.

*The Church does not teach this. *3 out of 266 popes have suggested this.

So you deny that the current Pope or his immediate predecessors have teaching authority?

As mentioned elsewhere, Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict 16, wrote that “here may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Cardinal Ratzinger said that there could be disagreements about how to apply the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. He did not say that the teaching itself was optional. Given that you just got done denying that he had teaching authority as Pope, its odd that you now claim that his opinion as a Cardinal trumps the current Pope’s authority. Pope Francis has made clear that the proper application of the Church’s teaching on the death penalty leads to the rejection of the death penalty. You can disagree with him and dissent from that teaching if you want, but you can’t say that is not authoritative Church teaching. It is.

 

[abucs]

Slavery was never supported by the Church, nor was forced conversions. Usury is still taught against, the Inquisition was enforced by State courts. In the 400 year run of the inquisition less than 400 people died-all at the hands of the State.

Hi estesbob, i think you may have made a typographical error.

for your sentence …“In the 400 year run of the inquisition less than 400 people died-all at the hands of the State”.

Did you mean less than 4000 people?

 

[abucs]

Its also odd to me that the Church has apologized for things that never happened - why is that?

Hi TMC,

When we are talking about the inquisitions and cases such as Galileo i think we have to distinguish between mistakes that were made in reality and mistakes attributed to the church unfairly through propaganda.

For example America and Britain can apologise for certain aspects of WW2 but that doesn’t mean they were wrong in prosecuting the war against the Nazis and her allies.

 

[TMC]

Hi TMC,

When we are talking about the inquisitions and cases such as Galileo i think we have to distinguish between mistakes that were made in reality and mistakes attributed to the church unfairly through propaganda.

For example America and Britain can apologise for certain aspects of WW2 but that doesn’t mean they were wrong in prosecuting the war against the Nazis and her allies.

I am not suggesting that the Church is somehow culpable for everything that has ever been done in its name. But I was asked to name some things approved of by prior Popes that would not be considered acceptable today (or vice versa). I think that the inquisitions clearly fall into that category. I didn’t mention Galileo, but that would fit into that category also.

 

[abucs]

Well, I disagree with you on all those points. The Church clearly supported slavery under varying conditions over the centuries,

Hi TMC,

i think like other institutions over a 2000 year period you can point to areas where slavery was practiced, if not theologically supported.

But what i think is clear is that the general trajectory of the Church’s position is against slavery. Whether it be Paul’s letter to Philimon describing himself as a ‘prisoner of Christ’ and asking him to take his slave Timothy back as ‘a brother’, or the fact that Christianity was known as the ‘religion of slaves’ or that many of the first popes were former slaves, there was a Christian relationship with slavery which did not support human oppression.

When Christianity became the state religion of Rome, slavery was ended shortly after. When the European Christian people converted the Vikings then slavery ended in much of Western and Northern Europe.

With the European interactions with the Muslim invasions and slave taking of Europe then many European kingdoms undertook slavery to overseas possessions. But Christians again stopped slavery in these lands through people on the ground and from home European countries who became aware of what was going on in the overseas possessions. What was a major transformation across the whole globe though was that Christians not only ended slavery (again) in their lands but at great financial and human cost stopped slavery all over the planet.

What is interesting to me is that the ending of slavery on the planet was a major social transformation but our kids are not taught how it ended, not just in one country but across the planet.

youtube.com/watch?v=ao7FKReHYKY

 

[Sword_Brethren]

It is a fantasy to think that a convicted murderer will be locked up forever and never hurt another human being again. That does not always happen even in our so-called civilized 21th century western society. The death penalty guarantees that a violent criminal will never hurt another human being ever again. My personal opinion is that child molesters, rapists, and murderers should all receive the death penalty. With their deaths by capital punishment, the society guarantees the convicted criminals will never hurt another human being again.

“Lawrence Bernard “Larry” Singleton (July 28, 1927 – December 28, 2001)[6] was an American criminal known for perpetrating an infamous rape and mutilation of an adolescent hitch-hiker in California in 1978. Released from prison after serving only eight years of his fourteen-year sentence, he went on to murder a second woman, for which he was sentenced to death in 1997. He died in 2001 of natural causes before the sentence could be carried out.”



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Singleton

 

[TMC]

Hi TMC,

i think like other institutions over a 2000 year period you can point to areas where slavery was practiced, if not theologically supported.

But what i think is clear is that the general trajectory of the Church’s position is against slavery. Whether it be Paul’s letter to Philimon describing himself as a ‘prisoner of Christ’ and asking him to take his slave Timothy back as ‘a brother’, or the fact that Christianity was known as the ‘religion of slaves’ or that many of the first popes were former slaves, there was a Christian relationship with slavery which did not support exploitation.

When Christianity became the state religion of Rome slavery was ended shortly after. When the European Christian people converted the Vikings then slavery ended in much of Western and Northern Europe.

With the European interactions with the Muslim invasions and slave taking of Europe then many European kingdoms undertook slavery to overseas possessions. But Christians again stopped slavery in these lands through people on the ground and from home European countries who became aware of what was going on in the overseas possessions. What was a major transformation across the whole globe though was that Christians not only ended slavery (again) in their lands but at great financial and human cost stopped slavery all over the planet.

What is interesting to me is that the ending of slavery on the planet was a major social transformation but our kids are not taught how it ended, not just in one country but across the planet.

youtube.com/watch?v=ao7FKReHYKY

My point was not to attack the Church’s past positions. I agree that there are going to be changes in a 2000 yr old institution. I also agree that change has generally moved in a positive direction. The point is that some are (apparently) claiming that there has not been a previous example of one Pope saying something different than his predecessors. I am merely pointing out that is not the case.

 

[abucs]

My point was not to attack the Church’s past positions. I agree that there are going to be changes in a 2000 yr old institution. I also agree that change has generally moved in a positive direction. The point is that some are (apparently) claiming that there has not been a previous example of one Pope saying something different than his predecessors. I am merely pointing out that is not the case.

OK TMC, i think you are right in saying this.

 

[pnewton]

1. talking about eliminating the DP *everywhere, *considering that the justification for abolition rests on the advanced nature of modern penal systems, and not all nations have that capacity…

I have the same reservation. However, on balance, I see halting the culture of death a laudable goal, and a goal we must make a top priority over a few people executed every year. I do not think Christians will every be taken seriously about the value of life unless we show that all life has intrinsic value.

 

[pnewton]

It is a fantasy to think that a convicted murderer will be locked up forever and never hurt another human being again.%between%

FYI - Your example was not “locked up forever.” He also was not a convicted murder.

 

[utah_rose]

Perhaps the Holy Father is not aware of cases like this. What a shame!

This is the problem. A conviction should include no parole period, and if the felon can’t be in a location that is safe for others, than solitary confinement should be used, and maybe that would be worse punishment. People like Charles Manson who have periodic probation hearings scare me, and someone like serial killer Ted Bundy who managed to escape twice scare me. Most of our prisons are not escape proof.

 

[pnewton]

Shame on Pope Pius XII for clinging to such a belief.

Just to be clear, we have no idea what Pope Pius would say today, or for that matter, what Pope Francis, Pope Benedict or St. John Paul would have said back during WWII and shortly thereafter.

 

[Brendan]

Just to be clear, we have no idea what Pope Pius would say today, or for that matter, what Pope Francis, Pope Benedict or St. John Paul would have said back during WWII and shortly thereafter.

FYI, that quote was made in 1955.

What would have changed in a Western prison system that would render his words to be invalid?