Pope Francis Changes Catechism to Declare Death Penalty ‘Inadmissible’

[exnihilo]

Lawyers don’t make money off death penalty cases. Many of them are working pro bono, and the ones paid by a state capital defender office or a nonprofit make low wages. Defendants generally have no money to pay.
The prosecutor probably gets paid decently, but his money comes out of our taxes.

Don’t forget about the judges and other court staff. Some may work pro bono. But that might also be a political or marketing investment. Lots of money is spent on the system either way.

So not only do you reject Church teaching on the appropriateness of the death penalty- you believe execution need to be carried out with more haste.

Church teaching? Since when? Yesterday?

In many cases more swift execution would be a very good thing. There are some really awful people out there that do horrible things. Why anyone would want them around longer to commit more horrors is beyond me. Anyone who disagrees is free to go spend a month living with these monsters and then come back and offer their opinion.

 

[angel12]

What about the innocent who are mistakenly convicted? Are their deaths acceptable to you?

 

[JimG]

Fr. Z: If something is in the Catechism, do I have to give in, believe it even though it is different from what the Catechism taught before?

QUAERITUR: If something is in the Catechism, do I have to give in, believe it even though it is different from what the Catechism taught before?

I am getting questions from lots people about Pope Francis' move to change the Church's doctrine concerning capital punishment. QUAERITUR: If this is in the Catechism, do I have to give in and believe it even though this is different from what the Catechism taught before? QUAERITUR: What is re

wdtprs.com

 

[Cruciferi]

What about the innocent who are mistakenly convicted?

Who said anything about due process and conviction? Hypothetically, we’re going after the most dangerous people in the world. They’re above the law.

 

[angel12]

Who said anything about due process and conviction?

Why didn’t you answer the second, and most important, part of my question?

 

[Cruciferi]

During war there’s always collateral damage. It can be reduced but it’s unfortunately inevitable.

 

[Feanor2]

Your thinking is not in keeping with Church teaching regarding the death penalty.

 

[Cruciferi]

it has everything to do with justice. Justice for the victims, and for their grieving families.

We cannot truly get justice. Only God can. The most we can do is neutralize an active threat.

 

[angel12]

During war there’s always collateral damage. It can be reduced but it’s unfortunately inevitable.

We’re not talking about war, we’re talking about the deliberate taking of human lives, in a prison setting. Which is in no way inevitable; in fact, quite easily prevented.

You’re OK with that.

That’s disgusting.

 

[Telstar]

Your thinking is not in keeping with Church teaching regarding the death penalty.

My thinking certainly was in keeping with Church teaching the day before yesterday. And, it still might be, since the wording of the change is so vague that even a Canon lawyer admits that it’s difficult to determine the ramifications of it, because of the use of a term that has never been used in any other Church document, before. That word being “inadmissible”. The CCC should never be vague, nor should it ever change doctrine. The explanation of it claims that it’s just a “development” of past doctrine and not a change, but it sure sounds like it is a change. The Code of Canon Law was also changed to reflect the new teaching.

We cannot truly get justice. Only God can. The most we can do is neutralize an active threat.

From a Catholic standpoint for individuals, your first point is true. But, the death penalty itself is carried out by a government body, who uses it for the purpose of carrying out justice against a person who commits a serious crime or crimes. In that case, any further threat would effectively be neutralized by imposing the death penalty.

Most individuals would not typically, or directly, be affected by that particular CCC teaching unless they have either committed a serious crime, or been the victim of one. This teaching seems to only be aimed at secular governing bodies.

 

[Cruciferi]

I don’t think anyone is saying that you cannot use lethal force on an active threat. However, Once they’re neutralized and taken prisoner, now you’re stuck with them.

When dealing with the likes of El Chapo and the people who profit from drugs, war, and death, it’s better to Take No Prisoners.

No, I’m not talking about prison. I’m suggesting that we shouldn’t take extremely dangerous people into custody. Take for example Osama bin Laden.

 

[njlisa]

I’m not arguing about the Holy Father’s teaching. I’m asking a question, not posing an argument.

But I do wonder about countries where drug lords or other dangerous gangs pose a threat to society. Is there a difference between using military force than executing them? Please share your thoughts.

Also, @Tis_Bearself, more than half of U.S. Catholics favor the death penalty. I’m not saying that’s good. I’m just saying this is the way it is.

Washington Post

 

[Cruciferi]

But I do wonder about countries where drug lords or other dangerous gangs pose a threat to society. Is there a difference between using military force than executing them?

Like I’ve said earlier, Self Defense and Just War are still possible. However we don’t want to be like the President of the Philippines hilippines:

“Duterte’s political success has been aided by his vocal support for the extrajudicial killing of drug users and other criminals.[17]”

Obviously he’s not stopping the drug trade. Instead, he’s killing low level criminals. He’s actually more a part of the problem.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here is a good article that situates Pope Francis’ modification into history and Scripture:

Death Penalty: A Genuine and Important Development of Catholic Teaching

COMMENTARY: The revised wording on capital punishment from the Vatican is an important reaffirmation of a central tenet of the Gospel.

www.ncregister.com

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Also, @Tis_Bearself, more than half of U.S. Catholics favor the death penalty. I’m not saying that’s good. I’m just saying this is the way it is.

Many if not most of the states have either already gotten rid of it or just almost never execute anybody. There’s about 20 to 25 executions a year in US and they can’t even get the drugs to use because manufacturers won’t sell them to us. So if we’re not going to do it anyway, it’s a bit moot whether all the Catholics love to put people to death.

 

[JimG]

The point is not whether or not the death penalty should be practiced by the state. I oppose the death penalty myself, for reasons having to do with cost and legal applicability and ineffectiveness. The point of the current discussion is that Catholic doctrine cannot be so easily discarded. To quote Edward Feser in a recent First Things essay, “Slapping the label “development” onto a contradiction doesn’t transform it into a non-contradiction.”

Pope Francis and Capital Punishment, by Edward Feser.

Pope Francis and Capital Punishment | Edward Feser

One does not need to support capital punishment to worry that Pope Francis may have gone too far.

www.firstthings.com

 

[AlNg]

I’m sorry if you disagree, but I believe there most certainly are times when capital punishment is necessary to protect innocent people from vicious killers. It has nothing to do with vengeance, but it has everything to do with justice. Justice for the victims, and for their grieving families.

However, in view of official Catholic teaching, would it be a mortal sin to vote in favor of the death penalty?

 

[AlNg]

The article you have cited says:
" to say, as the pope does, that the death penalty conflicts with “the inviolability and dignity of the person” insinuates that the practice is intrinsically contrary to natural law. And to say, as the pope does, that “the light of the Gospel” rules out capital punishment insinuates that it is intrinsically contrary to Christian morality.

To say either of these things is precisely to contradict past teaching. "

 

[graciew]

To say either of these things is precisely to contradict past teaching.

No…past teaching has always been " Do not kill" And it is still today. A Commandment.
If it was a concession,and there is no need nor excuse to keep DP today,may we return it to the Hands our Father in Heaven.
As so many countries have and with much less resources .

 

[AlNg]

No

This was not my quote. It was a quote from the article cited.

past teaching has always been " Do not kill"

Then what does Genesis 9:6 mean?