Pope Francis: Death penalty is contrary to the Gospel

[OneSheep]

Hmmm. Do you have something to back up your statement?

Here is a quick read for you:

Can we call God 'Mother'?

Every recent pope since John Paul I has made some reference to the value of understanding God like a mother.

uscatholic.org

Also, it is forbidden by canon law to loosely use the word “heresy”. It’s use is limited to certain people, after having proven certain criteria, etc.

 

[Vadne]

Oh, I didn’t realize Attanasi was an authoritative source.

 

[OneSheep]

In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman.

"Mother God"

As one whom his mother comforts, so I (God) will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem. Isaiah 66:13

www.catholicnewsagency.com

Note: I used He/She. It is non-definitive of gender.

Does that feel better?

Now, let’s get to the heart of the topic. Do you forgive people who murder if you hold something against them? (Note: holding something against a murderer is a sign of a good conscience)

 

[Vadne]

God is to be referred to with MASCULINE pronouns. The Church is quite clear on this point.

 

[OneSheep]

Now, let’s get to the heart of the topic. Do you forgive people who murder if you hold something against them? (Note: holding something against a murderer is a sign of a good conscience)

Do you agree that he want us to forgive murderers we resent?

 

[Ender]

death does not contribute to the correction of the guilty party or serve such a “medicinal” purpose.

If you’re going to simply ignore my citations then debate is useless. I just posted that very part of the catechism along with the endnote it referenced, which completely refutes your assertion, yet you respond as if I had said nothing at all. My citation was part of the catechism. How can you pretend it simply doesn’t exist?

My question was "are you saying that you speak for the Church today? Are you going to answer that question?

Really? You actually think this is a reasonable question? No, I clearly do not speak for the church. I do, however, speak what the church herself has spoken.

Are you agreeing with this: “however grave the crime that may be committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”

No

"And [the death penalty]
is, of itself, contrary to the Gospel, because it is freely decided to suppress a human life that is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator, and of which, in the final analysis, God alone is the true judge and guarantor,”

No

If not, then what you are saying is not in accord with what the Church always taught, because “always” includes now, today.

I never claimed that what Francis said is in accord with what the church teaches, nor do I believe that his comments amount to new church doctrine. Therefore, what the church actually teaches “now” is what she taught under BXVI and JPII - which is that the doctrines have not been changed.

So, in saying that punishment has vengeance as a purpose, and the death penalty is admissible for a subdued person, are you also saying that you are speaking for the Catholic Church today?

I’m not speaking “for” the church; I’m explaining her doctrines. Are you claiming that vengeance is sinful?

 

[Vadne]

It’s really a sign of how troubling a time we live in that doctrinal and theological arguments are reduced to the bottom line of, “Francis is so much more merciful than those judgmental popes before him…especially those really judgmental ones before Vatican II.”

 

[simpleas]

I’m not debating anything here, but this thread has me thinking about slavery. The church once owned slaves, it no longer does, but I would like to know if the doctrine on slaves was officially changed? It’s said that no doctrines can ever be changed, so could that mean that although we as a people now consider slavery unjust and completely wrong, officially in church documents it remains?
And this would be why the death penalty teaching would also remain as a doctrine because it can’t be changed by any pope?

 

[TMC]

It is not true that doctrine cannot change. A number of doctrines have changed - you have pointed out one yourself. We are seeing another change before our eyes with the death penalty.

 

[Cimachol]

Let’s see it in context:

In context, it says that under some circumstances the death penalty is justified, which as far as I know every pope has confirmed, at least until now.

Love, and the works of the Holy Spirit, are not vague, nor are they inconsistent, when one looks with eyes of faith, right?

The world “love” is used in a rather vague way all the time. For example, the Church has traditionally taught that admonishing the sinner is a loving act – a spiritual work of mercy no less. Others will call you a “pharisee” if you do this, tell you that you are being “too rigid” and suggest that you be more open-minded. “Works of the Holy Spirit” can similarly be used in very vague ways. If the Church’s magisterial authority were limited to vague phrases that can be interpreted to mean anything to anyone, it would be pretty useless, right?

 

[simpleas]

Did Church teaching on slavery change?[edit]

Although most authors argue that there has been a shift in Church teaching over the last two millennia from acceptance and toleration of slavery to opposition, some Catholic writers reject this claim, insisting that there has been no such change in the Magisterium.

One reason for this insistence is that authors who argue that the Magisterium has changed have pointed to this purported shift in teaching as setting a precedent that Church teaching has changed to be compatible with changes in social mores and morality.[129] As a result, historical interpretation of the Church’s teaching on slavery over the last two millennia has become controversial between those who would change the Church’s teaching in other areas and those who resist such changes— in effect, a debate between those who hold to the Church’s doctrine of infallibility and those that reject the Church’s claims.

Cardinal Avery Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of slavery

For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.
No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.
But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.[30]

 

[pnewton]

In context, it says that under some circumstances the death penalty is justified

We need to keep the tense of the verb “is” in mind, as well as the context, whether a sentence is a statement of doctrine, or a statement of instruction. The death penalty was justified. The death penalty might be justified again, in theory. Today, as a matter of doctrine it could be justified, at least in theory. However, the Holy Father is saying that it is not justified. None of these sentences contradict another.

I like the parallel with slavery. That too is contrary to human dignity, is an area that they Church has changed its position with time, yet is not intrinsically evil in all forms. The only difference I see is no one is defending slavery.

 

[Ender]

The death penalty was justified.

What justified the death penalty?

However, the Holy Father is saying that it is not justified.

On what grounds is it not justified today given that it was justified yesterday?

 

[OneSheep]

It’s really a sign of how troubling a time we live in that doctrinal and theological arguments are reduced to the bottom line of, “Francis is so much more merciful than those judgmental popes before him…especially those really judgmental ones before Vatican II.”

I agree that such would be troubling if it were the case. All modern popes and bishops (AFAIK) have opposed the DP, as I am sure you know, and anyone who thinks that doctrinal development is based on the spirituality of any individual member of the Church has little understanding of the way doctrine is formed. The Holy Spirit guides doctrine through people.

 

[Cimachol]

I’m not debating anything here, but this thread has me thinking about slavery. The church once owned slaves, it no longer does, but I would like to know if the doctrine on slaves was officially changed?

As early as the letters of St. Paul, there was a recognition that slave owners were morally obligated to treat their slaves as human beings: In Colossians 4:1, he writes: “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, realizing that you too have a Master in heaven.” In Philemon, he encourages the master of Onesimus to treat his slave as “a brother in Christ” (Philemon 16.) In Ephesians 6:5-9, he reminds slaves and masters of their equality before God. In Galatians 3:28, he states, “For all of you who were baptized in Christ … there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave or free … but all are one in Christ.”

So, while he doesn’t condemn slavery outright, he clearly saw that, for Christians, human beings could never be simply “property.” I believe it was Tim Staples who made a recording on this topic some years ago in which he noted that certain forms of forced labor would still be acceptable under the Church’s moral teaching. For example, forcing a prisoner of war or an imprisoned convict to perform some basic chores would probably not be immoral. Compelling someone to do work they had agreed to do under contract would likely be permissible. Of course, one can also easily imagine exceptions to each of these cases, but the point is, if by slavery one simply means forcing someone else to do some work, it is not always wrong, everywhere. If one means the ownership of another human being, such that a person is treated as a thing, than yes, it is always wrong.

This I see as a legitimate “doctrinal development”; the roots of the current teaching were always clearly there in Christianity.

 

[Cimachol]

The death penalty was justified. The death penalty might be justified again, in theory. Today, as a matter of doctrine it could be justified, at least in theory. However, the Holy Father is saying that it is not justified.

If that’s all he’s saying, I have no problem with that. That’s basically what JPII and B16 said – that it is justifiable under certain conditions, but that those conditions don’t exist today, in their opinion. But then why would there be a need for a change in Church teaching, which the articles say he is calling for? Or are the articles misrepresenting what he said?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Ender

If you’re going to simply ignore my citations then debate is useless. I just posted that very part of the catechism along with the endnote it referenced, which completely refutes your assertion, yet you respond as if I had said nothing at all. My citation was part of the catechism. How can you pretend it simply doesn’t exist?

I apologize. I looked back and cannot find anything that refutes the fact that death does not contribute to the correction of the guilty party or serve such a “medicinal” purpose. Please post the reference in response here, if you wish.

No, I clearly do not speak for the church. I do, however, speak what the church herself has spoken.

Yes, and as in the reference to slavery, a person could also promote slavery today based on the Church’s past practices. I am sure that when the Church developed its modern position on slavery, there was some push-back from people who wanted slaves. Today, there is push-back from people who want to put murderers to death. Change is not easy.

I’m not speaking “for” the church; I’m explaining her doctrines. Are you claiming that vengeance is sinful?

Well, we have this:

Matthew 38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

and we have Mark 11:25, which says that we are to forgive anyone we hold anything against.

When I am in the mode where I want revenge, I speak for myself that I know I am living in sin. My own spirituality is such that I have a connection with all people, so a new feeling of resentment toward anyone is a fracture in this “wholeness”. If sin is defined as alienation, which I think is a great definition, then it is true that my wanting vengeance is alienating me from some part of creation, namely a single person.

I cannot judge desire for revenge any more than I can judge anger. Both are God-given parts of our nature, and serve us to some degree. However, Jesus calls us to transcend our own nature, not to be a slave to it.

Until we forgive, we are slaves, we are alienated. Forgiveness erases desire for revenge.

 

[OneSheep]

For example, the Church has traditionally taught that admonishing the sinner is a loving act – a spiritual work of mercy no less. Others will call you a “pharisee” if you do this, tell you that you are being “too rigid” and suggest that you be more open-minded.

Those others, who call you a “pharisee” if you do this, are admonishing the act of admonishing. Their words would carry no weight, of course!

“Works of the Holy Spirit” can similarly be used in very vague ways. If the Church’s magisterial authority were limited to vague phrases that can be interpreted to mean anything to anyone, it would be pretty useless, right?

Actually, there is nothing vague about the works of the Spirit, but there may be some discernment involved:

CCC
739 Because the Holy Spirit is the anointing of Christ, it is Christ who, as the head of the Body, pours out the Spirit among his members to nourish, heal, and organize them in their mutual functions, to give them life, send them to bear witness, and associate them to his self-offering to the Father and to his intercession for the whole world. Through the Church’s sacraments, Christ communicates his Holy and sanctifying Spirit to the members of his Body. (This will be the topic of Part Two of the Catechism.)

740 These “mighty works of God,” offered to believers in the sacraments of the Church, bear their fruit in the new life in Christ, according to the Spirit.

Like I said, if one sees with eyes of faith, we are not talking about something that can mean anything to anyone.

 

[OneSheep]

Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.

Hi Simpleas!

Actually I find this line very pertinent to the discussion.

Arguably, it is very natural to want revenge, it is an innate response for the human. While putting a person to death for a crime is not part of natural law (for natural law calls for preservation of life and affirming dignity, correct?) the DP was “socially useful” in the world.

The comparison sort of ends there. Slavery itself was a means of preserving life in many cases. In war, the choice was often to kill or enslave, and slavery was the more merciful option. In addition, we do not have a human compulsion to enslave, while there is certainly such compulsion to take revenge.

Desiring revenge is “of the flesh”.

 

[Ender]

I looked back and cannot find anything that refutes the fact that death does not contribute to the correction of the guilty party or serve such a “medicinal” purpose. Please post the reference in response here, if you wish.

In post #55 I cited section 2266 of the catechism along with its end note. In saying penalties should be medicinal where possible, the end note provides an example of a penalty that contributed to the rehabilitation of the sinner. That example was “the good thief” who was crucified with Christ. That is, it was a case of capital punishment that led to that end.

Yes, and as in the reference to slavery, a person could also promote slavery today based on the Church’s past practices.

The argument here is that since the church changed her doctrine on slavery, every doctrine is reversible (unless it has been explicitly declared infallible?). Doctrines on marriage, confession, heaven, hell…literally every doctrine of the ordinary Magisterium is open to change - at the inclination of whoever currently sits in the Chair of Peter. Is that really the road you want to take?

I cannot judge desire for revenge any more than I can judge anger.

I didn’t ask you to judge someone else’s desire for revenge. I asked whether vengeance itself is immoral.