Pope Francis: Death penalty is contrary to the Gospel

[pnewton]

Ah, but there’s the rub. It simply needs to be framed as a development in teaching, not a reversal.

That is an interesting point. I started looking back. I seem to remember a story about Pope Paul VI opposing some executions (in Italy?). When he was accused of hypocrisy over the Vatican City death penalty, it was revealed that he had already abolished it years earlier. I will try and find more on this. I also read that Pope Pius XII had clarified that the death penalty was based on the actions of the man who had forfeited his right to live, not that the state had the right to take any life. Now when we apply the gospel to such a situation, it does seem to open the way for St. John Paul’s teaching. Now since we have to go back even further to get the “good parts,” when life was cheap, it sure has the “feel” of doctrinal development to me. Humanae Vitae moved much faster and, I would like to point out, in the same, pro-life direction. I think it is like the song “Love and Marriage,” you can’t have one without the other.

Now I have mentioned this before, and I may be full of fertilizer, if you call Francis Schaffer fertilizer, but I suspect we will not significant reduce abortion until we convince the world of the value of all human life, and this will never be done with the death penalty in place.

 

[irenaeus1]

Yes, Pope Pius XII clarified why the State executing someone was not considered murder… the State has the right to take away his life precisely because by his actions he had forfeited his right to live.

 

[irenaeus1]

I suspect we will not significant reduce abortion until we convince the world of the value of all human life, and this will never be done with the death penalty in place.

But Pope Pius XII valued all human life, yet accepted the State’s right and duty to impose the death penalty. We often hear that the Church today frowns upon the use of the death penalty because she recognizes the worth and dignity of every human life. This sounds very noble and Christian except for the fact that this is precisely the reason why the death penalty was imposed in the Scriptures. Human life is so valuable that the taking of innocent human life is punishable by death. The penalty is an extremely high price. Far from the claim of many that the life of the murder is treated as worthless by societIes that impose the death penalty; on the contrary, his life is highly valuable, which is precisely why his life is required as punishment.

 

[irenaeus1]

I suspect we will not significant reduce abortion until we convince the world of the value of all human life, and this will never be done with the death penalty in place.

This also does not seem to be demonstrably true based on all the countries that do not have the death penalty yet have extremely high abortion rates.

 

[pnewton]

This also does not seem to be demonstrably true based on all the countries that do not have the death penalty yet have extremely high abortion rates.

I do not believe it to be demonstrable period, which is why I worded it the way I did.

We often hear that the Church frowns upon the use of the death penalty because she recognizes the worth and dignity of every human life. This sounds very noble and Christian except for the fact that this is precisely the reason why the death penalty was imposed on the Scriptures.

That is why that argument is not a good one, at least standing alone. I agree. Yet saving that life is an act of Christian mercy precisely because he has forfeited it through his actions. St. Paul was a murderer for the state. By all common sense Jesus should have met him going to Damascus to strike him down in righteous judgment, not call him to a great service.

St. Francis did not say the death penalty was contrary to church teaching, justice or moral duty. He said it was contrary to the Gospel, where Jesus uses a reasoning that is contrary to the way man thinks.

 

[Ender]

I listed the last three popes. You can look above or Google a list of popes if you have forgotten.

I cannot speak for the position Francis will take, but BXVI and JPII had the same doctrinal understanding as all of their predecessors. Their opposition to capital punishment was a practical objection to its use, not a moral condemnation of its existence.

Not in the least, at least nothing new, like the last dozens of times you have made the same arguments over the years. All I have learned is that you are a real sincere advocate for the death penalty.

Actually, I rarely advocate anything at all. What I do is respond to the arguments made that I find incorrectly state the church’s actual teaching (doctrine) on the matter.

 

[irenaeus1]

St. Francis…

You’ve already canonized this pope??? Lol.

 

[pnewton]

You caught me. I am posting from the year 2058.

Now if you will excuse a parody of terrible reasoning, I bet you can’t prove that St. Francis (of Assisi) did not say the same thing.

 

[irenaeus1]

St. Paul was a murderer for the state. By all common sense Jesus should have met him going to Damascus to strike him down in righteous judgment, not call him to a great service.

Of course examples could be greatly multiplied and we can always come up with instances where God showed mercy on murderers, such as Cain, Moses, or David. But we can also show examples where God, although He’s merciful, chose NOT to spare life for something less grave than murder, such as Onan, Uzzah, Ananias and Sapphira. So this doesn’t really prove anything regarding the death penalty.

 

[oppositeman13]

I prefer what God has taught us in official catholic teaching - read what Dr. Edward Feser has to say -

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/...shment-even-the-popes-defenders-are-confused/

 

[mythbuster1]

Except what the parable describes actually happened: Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and over a million Jews perished. The Bible is full of warnings that sin leads to an early death in this world and fiery Gehenna in the next.

 

[pnewton]

Except what the parable describes actually happened: Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and over a million Jews perished.

Interesting observation. I wonder how much of this Jesus meant to reflect the sack of Jerusalem. I have to say I like it, though it does not change the nature of a parable.

 

[OneSheep]

Not true at all. All mankind is deserving of punishment, and this is not a matter of the flesh. God’s justice demanded atonement for sin for crying out loud. Expiation and propitiation provided by the sacrificial death of Jesus have everything to do with making amends as well as appeasing the wrath of God on our behalf. Also, Christ died on the cross to atone for the eternal penalty exacted for mankind’s sins, but the sacrifice of Christ did not necessarily remove the temporal punishment due for them.

You are referring to an Anselmian Theology, which was contested by many, including Pope Benedict (when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger) A good read here:

The Truth Will Make You Free: Joseph Ratzinger Re-Thinks Anselm's Theology of Redemption

 

[irenaeus1]

You are referring to an Anselmian Theology…

I am not necessarily advocating an Anselm theory of atonement. The use of terms like ‘expiation’ and ‘propitiation’ are used in the liturgy and magisterial documents in regard to the sacrifice of Christ as well as the sacrificial nature of the Mass. The point of my statement was to show that punishment for sins is not from the flesh as you had stated. The fact that we die in the first place (even if of natural causes) is a consequential punishment for the Fall. When King David lost his child to death as a punishment for his sins of murder and adultery even though his sin was already forgiven as announced to him by Nathan demonstrates that punishment for grave crimes is not a matter of the flesh. That all mankind is deserving of punishment due to man’s sinfulness is not Anselmian.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Every Christian knows that the dominant values which Christ promoted are love and forgiveness. What values are being promoted in capital punishment and please explain why these values are above love and forgiveness.Keep in mind that to allow capital punishment based on the value of justice allows the sinful value of vengeance to rage like a wildfire throughout our society!

When a criminal is disarmed and in a high-security prison capital punishment is unnecessary, and therefore an evil.

 

[irenaeus1]

In response to your question, I would say that God cannot sin, yet God condemns those who die in their sins to eternal punishment. I would say that God does not command others to sin, yet God authorized man to exact punishment upon men for murder; e.g., “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” Gen 9:6. So if God is love and forgiveness, how can this be? What values are being promoted by no less than God Himself?

As to your question regarding a disarmed criminal in a high-security prison, keep in mind that not all societies and nations have such means. In fact, some cultures are decades, if not centuries, behind so-called ‘advanced’ nations. Secondly, even for those societies that do have advanced prison systems, we have ample evidence of disarmed criminals in high-security prison killing other inmates and/or calling hits to murder others on the outside. So is he really disarmed?

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’m talking about what are the dominant values of Christianity, not some selective quote from Genisis. We are Christian, are we not? Why go to some ancient quote in the OT that was never endorsed by Christ. After all, we Christians are not bound by the OT laws, but by God’s loving grace, as endorsed by Christ Himself and are based on love and forgiveness. Indeed, Christ teaches that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven!

 

[irenaeus1]

First, as a Christian, I do not consider Gen 9:6 as some selective, ancient quote from the OT, but rather as it is – the Word of God. Second, you are confusing the issue of legal and disciplinary requirements of the Old Testament within the Old Covenant Law that no longer hold for us today. However, Gen 9:6 which was part of the Noahic covenant preceded the Law; i.e., “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” predates Israel and the Levitical Law and would seem to be binding for all peoples and times. So Gen 9:6 is not OT law. Thirdly, while it is not recorded whether Christ endorsed Gen 9:6, it never records Christ abrogating it either. In fact, when one of the two thieves who was crucified with Jesus proclaimed himself (and the other criminal) as deserving to die for his crimes, Jesus does not correct him. Fourthly, punishment does not necessarily preclude forgiveness. As I noted in a previous post, God forgave David for his sin of murder and adultery, yet punished David quite severely for having spurned the Lord. So don’t present a dichotomy where there is none.

Finally, let me go on record that I am not necessarily in favor of the death penalty. In fact, I personally know someone who has committed murder and is currently in prison, and I certainly would not want them put to death. However, I understand the State’s right to impose the death penalty if it so chooses; just as St. Paul noted in his letter to the Romans: “for he [the one in authority] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.”

 

[HarryStotle]

I’m talking about what are the dominant values of Christianity, not some selective quote from Genisis. We are Christian, are we not? Why go to some ancient quote in the OT that was never endorsed by Christ. After all, we Christians are not bound by the OT laws, but by God’s loving grace, as endorsed by Christ Himself and are based on love and forgiveness. Indeed, Christ teaches that if we do not forgive, we will not be forgiven!

Jesus’ teaching does not imply that merely BECAUSE you forgive, you will be forgiven.

Forgiving others is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for our being forgiven.

Merely forgiving others is not all that is required to be forgiven. It is what we must do, but it is not the only thing we must do.

We are also not free to thwart ALL Old Testament laws merely because we think we are loving of others. Love entails a number of things, forgiving others is only one. Many of the laws in the Old Testament provide a schema for what love properly lived would look like. We ignore those laws to our peril. Nor does it mean that by merely following the laws, even all of them, that we are loving and following the two most important laws.

 

[HarryStotle]

Every Christian knows that the dominant values which Christ promoted are love and forgiveness. **What values are being promoted in capital punishment and please explain why these values are above love and forgiveness.**Keep in mind that to allow capital punishment based on the value of justice allows the sinful value of vengeance to rage like a wildfire throughout our society!

When a criminal is disarmed and in a high-security prison capital punishment is unnecessary, and therefore an evil.

I will direct you to this series of posts of mine in another thread…

Scholars raise concerns over Pope Francis remarks on how doctrine develops Catholic News

Love and forgiveness cannot be dominant values absent a clear understanding of principles of justice, right and wrong. If someone steals something, say a prized painting, the thief has accrued a debt. Justice demands that the painting is returned to the owner. Forgiveness and love both support returning the painting or, at least, the return of something of proportionate value. There is no sense in saying the thief stole the painting but it’s okay we all love and forgive him and he can keep the …