Pope Francis Calls for Abolition of Death Penalty

[pnewton]

Either the arguments are valid or they are not. Being a Catholic theologian is not a prerequisite to being right.

Ender

This is totally true, as was what I said. So? If you note, one poster appreciated the information. Some of us already were aware of the situation. I always want to know if someone has a specific agenda, as opposed to dialogue with an open mind to change.

 

[pnewton]

True. None of which means that I am not correct on everything I stated. for which you are free to offer an rebuttal, to which I will reply.

A rebuttal to what? You just said Pope Francis was in contradiction with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Okay. My rebuttal is, “No.”

Such an outrageous claim needs some evidence. You gave no quote the Pope Francis made contradicting Catholic teaching. I cannot rebut what does not exist.

 

[dudleysharp]

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

Actually, justice and retribution has always, and remains, the primary purpose of sanction.

The Church reiterated this in the most recent CCC, wherein She identified redress as primary. Redress is retribution, but also include others purposes.

In 2267 the Church attempts to replace a primary function, redress/justice/retribution, with a secondary function, safety, yet oferred no rational reason to do so, which appears justified, in that an eternal goal, justice, cannot be pushed aside by safety, defined as the temporal state of incarceration systems.

Furtherrmore, the Chuch did not analyze the state of prisons systems, which would have resulted in the opposite finding of that which bothe EV and CCC found, as detailed:

Catechism & State Protection
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html

 

[dudleysharp]

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.

As the preservation of law and order is for the good of the community.

 

[dudleysharp]

Isn’t it problematic to use the Fifth Commandment as justification for opposition to the death penalty? Weren’t Jews who followed God’s law obligated to use the death penalty? Didn’t the Catholic Church support the death penalty while explaining that the Fifth Commandment didn’t mean any killing. Taking the Fifth Commandment to mean no killing is justified seems to me to be a change in teaching. I think it would confuse non Christians and lead them to doubt the authenticity of the Catholic Church.

I have no problem with promoting the idea that modern states don’t need to use the death penalty. I do have a problem with a seeming reinterpretation of commandments.

Pretty scary, eh?

 

[dudleysharp]

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

He isn’t.

Both EV and CCC made statements that were in complete contradiction of the facts of the well known problems with the criminal justice systems not protecting the innocent.

Had either SPJPII or those writing the CCC been concerned about the well known realities of criminal justice systems, they would have spent a few moments investigation them.

They didn’t. How do we know? Because both stated that cases of repeat violence were rare, if not practically non existent, when in fact such claim is the opposite of the truth, as is well known, as detailed.

Catechism and State Protection
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html

 

[dudleysharp]

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?

The change in teaching did not become confirmed until 1997.

The change was prompted by an error by Pope John Paul II and such error was placed as an amendment into the CCC, with no one fact checking.

Re: CCC 2267:

from Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Flannery was, also, appointed by SPJPII.

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II." (4).

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.” (4)

“Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University(Rome) and Permanent Research Fellow - Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture (University of Notre Dame. lr.avemarialaw.edu/Content/articles/V5i2.flannery.copyright.pdf

 

[dudleysharp]

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. .

Whose rule is it that we all die because of our sins?

And do you condemn that reality? Do you?

Does the Church, morally, allow killing in self defense, in defense of others, in a just war and with executions, all agsint unjust aggressors.

The answer is yes, She does,

 

[dudleysharp]

That’s enough. Either you do not know Church teaching, what the Pope has said, or the meaning of the word “contradiction”.

Another word for “teaching” is “doctrine”. The Holy Father is not in contradiction with Church doctrine.

I am sorry I was not more clear.

The Pope said that “thou shalt not kill” applies to the guilt and the innocent, equally.

There are three well known errors in there, which are basic biblical studies 101.

I deteiled this in another comment, herein.

 

[dudleysharp]

If his comments were intended to be doctrinal then your objection would be valid. If, however, his comments are prudential then there is no conflict. The church has always acknowledged that external circumstances could determine whether the death penalty should not be used.

That is not what I was referring to. I should have been specific.

I was speaking of the Pope’s incredible claim that “thou shalt not kill” applies to both the guilty and the innocent, which contradics to 2000 years of Catholic teaching and what, 3000 prior years of Jewish teaching and simply ignores the most recent CCC, wherein clear distinctions are made, between the innocent and the guilty, in that very context, within CCC 2258-2267.

My apologies for not being specific.

 

[dudleysharp]

The change in teaching did not become confirmed until 1997.

The change was prompted by an error by Pope John Paul II and such error was placed as an amendment into the CCC, with no one fact checking.

Re: CCC 2267:

from Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Flannery was, also, appointed by SPJPII.

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II." (4).

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.” (4)

“Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University(Rome) and Permanent Research Fellow - Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture (University of Notre Dame. lr.avemarialaw.edu/Content/articles/V5i2.flannery.copyright.pdf

 

[Ender]

I was speaking of the Pope’s incredible claim that “thou shalt not kill” applies to both the guilty and the innocent, which contradicts to 2000 years of Catholic teaching and what, 3000 prior years of Jewish teaching and simply ignores the most recent CCC, wherein clear distinctions are made, between the innocent and the guilty, in that very context, within CCC 2258-2267.

Ah, yes, that one is a problem. Here is how Catholic Online reported his comments.*“The commandment ‘You shall not kill,’ has absolute value and applies to both the innocent and the guilty.”
*This is somewhat incomprehensible, and seems to put us in the position of believing either the church or the pope. This is clearly not what the church teaches, either now or at any time in her past. There is no other way to say this: according to church doctrine he is…incorrect.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I am sorry I was not more clear.

The Pope said that “thou shalt not kill” applies to the guilt and the innocent, equally.

There are three well known errors in there, which are basic biblical studies 101.

I deteiled this in another comment, herein.

There is a principle in that commandment that does apply to all, that is that the taking of human life needlessly does apply to all equally. This is the “value” the Pope speaks of. If you do not subscribe to this understanding, that is fine. However, it does not contradict Catholic teaching. At one time, and* possibly* in some circumstances, the death penalty is needed.

We do the same thing for all the commandments, like applying the understanding of the Sabbath to a Sunday. Biblical studies 101 varies from denomination to denomination. We cannot look to Protestant interpretation as there is not authority or agreement when everyone takes their own interpretation as authority. Catholic exegesis allows for a passage to have more than one meaning, as it comes from the Rabbinical tradition from which Christianity (and Jesus) came.

This is the “error in the beginning.”

 

[Ender]

There is a principle in that commandment that does apply to all, that is that the taking of human life needlessly does apply to all equally.

He didn’t qualify it to the “needless” taking of life. Just the opposite in fact: he called it an “absolute” prohibition in all cases.

Ender

 

[graciew]

He didn’t qualify it to the “needless” taking of life. Just the opposite in fact: he called it an “absolute” prohibition in all cases.

Ender

After reading the whole blog,maybe there is a flaw in what the author describes as dignity.
Even when written or understood in good faith,the author,Dudley or any person,may want to reconsider how they are using it.
If I am not mistaken,which I may well be,by grasping dignity as it was,much of what they support can be flawed. At least , understanding dignity helps us all.

By the way,I appreciate what you posted of Augustine,my own flaw was the date and influence of " The Prince". …and it was an interesting read anyway. One thought leads to the other and reading more makes it much better.

 

[dudleysharp]

There is a principle in that commandment that does apply to all, that is that the taking of human life needlessly does apply to all equally. This is the “value” the Pope speaks of. If you do not subscribe to this understanding, that is fine. However, it does not contradict Catholic teaching. At one time, and* possibly* in some circumstances, the death penalty is needed. "

pnewton:

Thank you.

That, in fact, is the error which transferred from EV into CCC, as I detailed, herein, as confirmed by a scholar with The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

The additional error, as also detailed, was EV and CCC saying that in modern times, because of criminal justice systems, that the death penalty is no longer needed to protect folks, because repeat harm in rare if not practically non existent.

Such could not be further from the truth.

I fully contradicted that as well, in detail, both factually and by reason.

So far, neither of those have been contradicted, herein or anywhere else, that I am aware of.

 

[dudleysharp]

This is totally true, as was what I said. So? If you note, one poster appreciated the information. Some of us already were aware of the situation. I always want to know if someone has a specific agenda, as opposed to dialogue with an open mind to change.

FYI. I have an open mind. I was once against the death penalty and changed positions based upon two years of reading and fact checking the topic.

Open minds mean very little, if they do not confirm by reason and fact checking.

 

[graciew]

FYI. I have an open mind. I was once against the death penalty and changed positions based upon two years of reading and fact checking the topic.

Open minds mean very little, if they do not confirm by reason and fact checking.

Dudley,any of us may make mistakes in good faith. In fact,we learn together.
And it does make a difference when I read a medicine piece written by a lawyer,for example. Not to disqualify,but not assuming a different platform.
I am more laid back when I read Ratzinger than a blog. In that sense.

 

[pnewton]

Open minds mean very little, if they do not confirm by reason and fact checking.

Yes, but like I alluded to earlier, an error in the beginning is an error indeed. Catholics do not believe each believe acts as their own teacher to glean truth for themselves. Well, many do, but a Catholic mindset is one that does not see us as a flock of shepherds, but of sheep.

You cannot, under anyway I imagine convince us that you are right over the Catechism. It simply will not happen because of the authority issue, which does not affect you. We see the Holy Spirit moving where you may simply see a good, but misguided, man.

 

[Peebo]

Really? One may wonder why Church support for capital punishment was so overwhelming for 2000 years.

Please review:

The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html

New Testament Death Penalty Support Overwhelming
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-testament-death-penalty-support.html

The Catholic Church does not “support” the death penalty…what it does support is the right of the state to have recourse to use the death penalty