Pope Francis Calls for Abolition of Death Penalty

[Corki]

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.

Don’t forget that the Pope has also condemned solitary confinement imprisonment and life sentences.

 

[irenaeus1]

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.

The problem here is that the present Pontiff does not like life sentences either. So now what?

 

[Corki]

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.

The Church has never taught that the most recent voice holds the most weight. In fact, most of the authoritative pronouncements of Popes are careful to call upon and build on the ancient teachings and a continuity of teaching thorughout the centuries.

 

[St_Francis]

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

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

The basis for the suggestion was that since the justification for punishment is self-defense [institutionalized through the state], and since advanced nations are able to fulfill that necessity without putting people to death, the death penalty ought to be abolished. That is why I and other posters keep referring to advanced nations.

Are you saying that the DP should be abolished even in poor nations who cannot even come close to guaranteeing that someone who is put in prison will never again pose a threat? If so, then you are proposing taking away their right to self-defense, the state’s *obligation *to protect the society.

Do you deny that the Pope has teaching authority?

The pope has the authority to teach that which has been handed down to him, iow, the teachings of the Catholic Church. He has no papal authority to teach anything else.

Why is the current Pope, or the previous two, less authoritative than his predecessors?

They are all equally authorized, and in fact, that shows that this whole thing is a bit of a boondoggle.

If one pope can simply override what a previous pope taught, then the teachings of the Church become unstable, driven by the whims of whoever is pope.

Take the issue of slavery. What was left uncondemned was a system in which prisoners of war were enslaved. Those who did so did not have the ability to make effective POW camps the way we do now. The only other option, then, was to kill them; thus, slavery was a kinder option. The other way that people fell into slavery was more like indentured servitude: when people fell into debt, they enslaved themselves to pay off the debt.

When chattel slavery came into being, it was condemned immediately.

Wait, so you’re back to saying that Catholics must only assent to infallible statements?

That’s not what I said.

I thought we agreed that all Church teachings were authoritative? Which is it?

All Church teachings are authoritative. Not everything every pope says is a Church teaching.

I hope this is not a serious question. It is in the catechism, which is absolutely authoritative.

It is authoritative only insofar as it reflects Church teaching; for example, the first edition required corrections, and the section on the DP was re-written. IIRC, the original was more strongly against the DP, but I am not sure where my first edition CCC is, so I cannot verify this.

Here is what the CCC says (Note the 3rd paragraph, which explains the basis for this stance on the DP): 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. [And this underlined part is not part of the traditional teaching–it is incomplete.]

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 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 nonexistent."68

The footnote refers the reader to Evangelium Vitae. Upon reading EV, the footnotes regarding the DP refer one back to the CCC. (very odd)

The Pope’s repeated comments are his teaching on how to apply the catechism, which is also authoritative.

The Pope offers *advice, *but whether or not to use the DP is a prudential judgement to be decided by the State. The use of the term *prudential judgement *signifies that the final decision rests not with the Church but with the competent authority, the State, which must use its judgement tempered by prudence to decide.

As an example, take abortion. Abortion is in no way a subject for prudential judgement; it is intrinsically wrong. The government cannot say, we have some circumstances here which justify permitting abortion.

OTOH, the government can say that circumstances exist in which we must go to war: that is prudential judgement.

The fact that something is a matter of prudential judgement does justify just any decision, the decision must fall in line with prudence.

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.

It would be absurd if we were to have a situation in which Church was subject to change with every change of pontiff.

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

Of course not, only that every word they speak is Catholic teaching.

continued below

 

[St_Francis]

continued from above

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.

What Card Ratzinger said was very clearly that there could be disagreements about how to apply the death penalty. He did not reference the idea that the DP should be abolished at all, since he was saying that there could be legitimate disagreements about the DP.

Given that you just got done denying that he had teaching authority as Pope,

I didn’t do that.

its odd that you now claim that his opinion as a Cardinal trumps the current Pope’s authority.
No, I am in no way claiming that. I am claiming that in one instance a teaching of the Church was expressed, and in the other that no teaching of the Church was expressed.

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.

The CCC specifically states that the teaching of the Church does *not *exclude the use of the DP, so how can it possibly be that Church teaching *does *exclude it?

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.

I can and I have done my best to show that it is not Church teaching. You have not shown that it *is *Church teaching.

 

[St_Francis]

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.

And your point is…?

 

[TMC]

The Church has never taught that the most recent voice holds the most weight. In fact, most of the authoritative pronouncements of Popes are careful to call upon and build on the ancient teachings and a continuity of teaching thorughout the centuries.

So what does the Church teach? That you should simply weigh everything that has ever been taught and pick and choose amongst them as you please? So one Catholic decides to take a 2nd century view of slavery, another picks a 12th century view of usury, and none need worry what the current Pope says?

The Pope has teaching authority, that is clear Church teaching.

 

[TMC]

The basis for the suggestion was that since the justification for punishment is self-defense [institutionalized through the state], and since advanced nations are able to fulfill that necessity without putting people to death, the death penalty ought to be abolished. That is why I and other posters keep referring to advanced nations.

Are you saying that the DP should be abolished even in poor nations who cannot even come close to guaranteeing that someone who is put in prison will never again pose a threat? If so, then you are proposing taking away their right to self-defense, the state’s *obligation *to protect the society.

**The pope has the authority to teach that which has been handed down to him, iow, the teachings of the Catholic Church. He has no papal authority to teach anything else.
**

They are all equally authorized, and in fact, that shows that this whole thing is a bit of a boondoggle.

If one pope can simply override what a previous pope taught, then the teachings of the Church become unstable, driven by the whims of whoever is pope.

Take the issue of slavery. What was left uncondemned was a system in which prisoners of war were enslaved. Those who did so did not have the ability to make effective POW camps the way we do now. The only other option, then, was to kill them; thus, slavery was a kinder option. The other way that people fell into slavery was more like indentured servitude: when people fell into debt, they enslaved themselves to pay off the debt.

When chattel slavery came into being, it was condemned immediately.

That’s not what I said.

All Church teachings are authoritative. Not everything every pope says is a Church teaching.

It is authoritative only insofar as it reflects Church teaching; for example, the first edition required corrections, and the section on the DP was re-written. IIRC, the original was more strongly against the DP, but I am not sure where my first edition CCC is, so I cannot verify this.

Here is what the CCC says (Note the 3rd paragraph, which explains the basis for this stance on the DP): 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. [And this underlined part is not part of the traditional teaching–it is incomplete.]

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 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 nonexistent."68

The footnote refers the reader to Evangelium Vitae. Upon reading EV, the footnotes regarding the DP refer one back to the CCC. (very odd)

The Pope offers *advice, *but whether or not to use the DP is a prudential judgement to be decided by the State. The use of the term *prudential judgement *signifies that the final decision rests not with the Church but with the competent authority, the State, which must use its judgement tempered by prudence to decide.

As an example, take abortion. Abortion is in no way a subject for prudential judgement; it is intrinsically wrong. The government cannot say, we have some circumstances here which justify permitting abortion.

OTOH, the government can say that circumstances exist in which we must go to war: that is prudential judgement.

The fact that something is a matter of prudential judgement does justify just any decision, the decision must fall in line with prudence.

It would be absurd if we were to have a situation in which Church was subject to change with every change of pontiff.

Of course not, only that every word they speak is Catholic teaching.

continued below

Wow. So the Pope only has the authority to teach those things that you decide have been “handed down”? In other words, the Pope has authority when he agrees with you and everything else is a “boondoggle”? That is a pretty… unusual position for a Catholic to take.

 

[TMC]

continued from above

What Card Ratzinger said was very clearly that there could be disagreements about how to apply the death penalty. He did not reference the idea that the DP should be abolished at all, since he was saying that there could be legitimate disagreements about the DP.

I didn’t do that.

its odd that you now claim that his opinion as a Cardinal trumps the current Pope’s authority.

Its not me saying that it is Church teaching, its the Pope saying that. You are really just saying that you disagree with the Pope.

 

[St_Francis]

Wow. So the Pope only has the authority to teach those things that **you decide **have been “handed down”?

Of course that’s what I meant; I can’t believe I left that part out!

In other words, the Pope has authority when he agrees with you and everything else is a “boondoggle”? That is a pretty… unusual position for a Catholic to take.

Not really. If any pope can make any changes he pleases that there would be chaos.

 

[St_Francis]

Its not me saying that it is Church teaching, its the Pope saying that. You are really just saying that you disagree with the Pope.

I can disagree with the pope! If he says the sky is green, am I supposed to agree with him?

I haven’t heard that the pope said this was Church teaching.

 

[pnewton]

FYI, that quote was made in 1955.

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

Oh my gosh. I could write a book. A few are: the advent of computers; the setting of minimum standards, including guard to inmate ratios; training; classification of inmates by severity of crime; identifying and segregating gang members; better prison conditions (heating, leisure, food); reduced over-crowding; the building of Super-max prisons; Prison Rape Elimination Act.

That being said, nothing Pope Piux XII said is wrong, but it addressed the application of the death penalty in a different time. He might still say the same thing today, or he may not.

 

[philipl]

*The *purpose? Which purpose is the purpose?

to take bad people and keep them away from good people.

 

[pnewton]

to take bad people and keep them away from good people.

If this is the purpose, then this purpose is not defeated based on how nice the place is they are locked away in.

 

[Corki]

So what does the Church teach? That you should simply weigh everything that has ever been taught and pick and choose amongst them as you please? So one Catholic decides to take a 2nd century view of slavery, another picks a 12th century view of usury, and none need worry what the current Pope says?

The Pope has teaching authority, that is clear Church teaching.

The Church teaches that ALL is valuable, starting from Scripture and continuing on to the words of the magisterium in our day. You are setting up a false dichotomy. It’s not a matter of “picking and choosing” but neither can a Catholic simply disregard the teachings of a past Pope or Council just because they are not contemporary.

A Catholic can agree with the current Pope that the death penalty should be abolished or that it is unneeded in today’s world. But that doesn’t mean that he must disagree with past Popes who said that capital punishment could be applied in certain circumstances. Nor does it make capital punishment, as a complete universal construct, immoral. And it doesn’t mean that just because capital punishment is not needed today, it might not be a prudent exercise in judgement at some point in the future. It is not an objectively immoral act.

 

[Ender]

Ender:

The primary objective of punishment is not the protection of society; it is retribution, retributive justice.

You have made perfectly clear over the years that this is your position. It is not that of the Church.

It is my position precisely *because *it is the position of the church. CCC 2266 *The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.
*Ender

 

[Ender]

Take it up with the last three Popes, it is not my position. It is theirs, and the Church’s.

I can’t think of anything that more clearly demonstrates the prudential nature of this teaching: it is the position of only the last three popes, not that of the 260+ that preceded them. That is, it is a personal judgment, not a repudiation of a 2000 year old doctrine.

Ender

 

[Micosil]

"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/

Yeah, because he totally wouldn’t have gone crazy in the normal prison while serving a life sentence, right? He would have behaved like a saint.

 

[Ender]

I find it interesting that even under the Baltimore Catechism (which was not universally promulgated by the Holy See as a sure norm for teaching) we find that the good of community is even ground with the preservation of law and order, and that* both* are required to justify the death penalty.

I think you’re reading more into the Baltimore Catechism than was intended. The penalty is justified:*…when the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution.
*One would think that the preservation of law and order was a major “good of the community.” How in fact could it be otherwise? If capital punishment is required to ensure the preservation of law and order it is already justified as a good required by the community.

Suppose, however, that it is not needed to preserve law and order, but is only good for the community. Are you suggesting societies should not do what is good for them unless it is also necessary to preserve law and order? This interpretation seems like a stretch.

More basically, however, the primary objective of punishment is retributive justice, which is surely indispensable to the preservation of law and order and is by definition a good of the community.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I missed where the Baltimore Catechism used that term. My biggest objection to the use of the term is that it is empty without modifiers, like the phrase “pro-choice”. Choice needs a modifier to narrow what the choice is. Judgment needs the same modifier to defined what is being judged. Besides, if one’s idea of prudence runs counter to saints and popes, just how prudent is it really? I would think if nothing else that it would be prudent to give serious consideration to the overwhelming voice of the Church.

Appealing to the positions of “saints and popes” is probably not the best argument for your position, given that, prior to 1995 almost none of them opposed capital punishment in any form. Throw in the positions expressed by all the previous catechisms, and virtually all of the Doctors and Fathers of the church, and this appeal is pretty much stillborn. The “overwhelming voice of the church” is that capital punishment was, and still is, justifiable.

Ender