Pope Francis tells Congress ‘every life is sacred,’ says the death penalty should be abolished

[ucfengr]

I never mentioned prison rape, did I? There’s a lot of things that happen in prison, such as solitary confinement and the lack of personal freedom or privacy. The lack of material possessions. That he would have no respect given to him, and that there’s no one to exert control over. A man of rage and vindictiveness, and all that’s there is a bunch of people who are immune. All of his education and skills at manipulation would not serve him in the slightest.

You didn’t have to. Solitary confinement and such are additional punishments for violating prison rules, they weren’t part of his original sentence. So when you say “I know what happened to him in prison (people found out why he was there, and what he did to his children in the past, plus he has a big mouth)”, rape and other forms of brutalization by other inmates is implied even if you would prefer not to acknowledge it.

Also, I’d like to know which crimes should be punishable by death.

Serial murder and rape, mass murder, war crimes, to name a few. I’m sure I could think of a few more if I were inclined to.

Church teaching doesn’t endorse the death penalty to be used as a retributive punishment. The Church teaches that capital punishment should only be used if there are no other means available to protect the public from serious risk.

Pope Francis is simply reiterating Church teaching relating to the situation we find ourselves in today, where we do seem to have the means to protect the public from murderers by using means other than putting people to death.

As has also been said, John Paul II wrote very clearly on this as well.

So as far as Catholic teaching is concerned (and Catholic teaching represents absolute truth) Pope Francis is right on this.

Papal squeamishness on the death penalty is a fairly new phenomenon. I don’t recall Pope Pius XII condemning the death sentences handed out at the Nuremberg trials even though Goering, Keitel, von Ribbentrop, and the others posed no threat to the public once the war was over and they’d been captured. Saints Augustine argued in favor of the death penalty in “The City of God”, as did Saint Thomas Aquinas in “Summa Theologiae”.

 

[Melchior_1]

You didn’t have to. Solitary confinement and such are additional punishments for violating prison rules, they weren’t part of his original sentence. So when you say “I know what happened to him in prison (people found out why he was there, and what he did to his children in the past, plus he has a big mouth)”, rape and other forms of brutalization by other inmates is implied even if you would prefer not to acknowledge it.

Yes, when you mouth off at guards saying you’re smarter than them and pick fights with other inmates due to a Napoleon Complex, you get sent to solitary. I heard about how his attitude got him into trouble, and when people found out what he did it didn’t help when it came to when he misbehaved…

I would never condone rape. That you would accuse me is not only reprehensible, but also speaks poorly to your character, as does your curious stance to pick apart details provided by someone who in theory should be more in favor of the death penalty - but has decided against it because it leads to government carrying out someone’s revenge.

Tell me the floor, what crime is the minimum for the death penalty. And explain why you are this against those who think everyone has the right to life.

 

[Dranu]

So as far as Catholic teaching is concerned (and Catholic teaching represents absolute truth) Pope Francis is right on this.

Prudential judgments and matters of faith and morals are wholly different in the scope of authority they have. ‘Catholic teaching representing the absolute truth’ only applies to certain teachings.

We ought to be careful, even with a zealous heart of obedience, not as to alienate our brothers and sister, in and out of the faith, by calling something a matter of faith that is not, and so erecting a barrier to salvation on matters that really are part of true teaching.

 

[ucfengr]

Yes, when you mouth off at guards saying you’re smarter than them and pick fights with other inmates due to a Napoleon Complex, you get sent to solitary. I heard about how his attitude got him into trouble, and when people found out what he did it didn’t help when it came to when he misbehaved…

I would never condone rape. That you would accuse me is not only reprehensible, but also speaks poorly to your character, as does your curious stance to pick apart details provided by someone who in theory should be more in favor of the death penalty - but has decided against it because it leads to government carrying out someone’s revenge…

So you’d draw the line at prison rape, but a good solid beating or, maybe a shiving is probably okay. What does condoning prison violence, up to, but not including rape say about your character? You’re the one who implied that he, as a rapist and child abuser, got what was coming to him in prison, which generally implies a liberal dosing of beatings and “prison rape”. That’s just reality. I would view you not wanting to acknowledge it as denial.

Tell me the floor, what crime is the minimum for the death penalty. And explain why you are this against those who think everyone has the right to life.

I’m not against you, per se, but I disagree with your stance on this issue. I don’t think everybody does have a “right to life”. There are certain crimes that can cause you to forfeit that right. This is not a new teaching in the Church. Both Augustine and Aquinas made very strong cases for the death penalty. It’s the teaching that the “death penalty is wrong” that is new and novel. The early Church Fathers would not have recognized it.

 

[Melchior_1]

So you’d draw the line at prison rape, but a good solid beating or, maybe a shiving is probably okay. What does condoning prison violence, up to, but not including rape say about your character? You’re the one who implied that he, as a rapist and child abuser, got what was coming to him in prison, which generally implies a liberal dosing of beatings and “prison rape”. That’s just reality. I would view you not wanting to acknowledge it as denial.

Did I say that violence was okay? No I did not. If I am opposed to capital punishment because it’s usually nothing more than an outlet of revenge, why would I be in favor of excessive violence being used for revenge? I’m a little bit surprised that you haven’t accused me of being fine with him raping the woman who committed perjury (I’m obviously not fine with this, because rape is an abomination).

I want to meet my father in Heaven some day. I genuinely want him to have a “Road to Damascus” moment, I want what is best for him despite that it will take a miracle for him to make it through. Did he “get what was coming to him”? In a sense yes, because the the non-violent situations in prison would not be favorable to him, I know that would greatly impact him in a negative way. Perhaps I should have spelled that out more clearly earlier, however I expected most people to understand that I would be opposed to violence being used in an improper context. If you want to talk more about this, send me a PM. And before you send me a PM, read this to get a better understanding as to why your claims about me are off base.

Speaking of improper context, that’s my stance on capital punishment, incidentally. I’m fine with provided it is used in the proper context, however said context is very limited due to the resources available to society at the moment to keep people incarcerated and harming people, and also limited due to it being used as a vengeful tool.

 

[ucfengr]

If I am opposed to capital punishment because it’s usually nothing more than an outlet of revenge

Sending someone to prison for life isn’t an outlet of revenge? The whole reason for punishing criminals, is revenge. We don’t put them in tiny little cells and subject them to a brutal prison culture out of love. We certainly don’t put them there expecting them to reform. If our only goal was to protect society from criminals, we could give them much nicer accommodations. We give the State a monopoly on vengeance because the alternative, a culture of vendetta, is much worse for society, not out of any love for criminals.

 

[Melchior_1]

Sending someone to prison for life isn’t an outlet of revenge? The whole reason for punishing criminals, is revenge. We don’t put them in tiny little cells and subject them to a brutal prison culture out of love. We certainly don’t put them there expecting them to reform. If our only goal was to protect society from criminals, we could give them much nicer accommodations. We give the State a monopoly on vengeance because the alternative, a culture of vendetta, is much worse for society, not out of any love for criminals.

Does God punish us out of revenge?

I’m of the belief that there is a greater chance at possible rehabilitation and repentance if people are alive, and I agree with the assessment of our last three Popes.

Some interesting reading here vis a vis Aquinas.

 

[MikeFrancisSDCA]

Sending someone to prison for life isn’t an outlet of revenge? The whole reason for punishing criminals, is revenge. We don’t put them in tiny little cells and subject them to a brutal prison culture out of love. We certainly don’t put them there expecting them to reform. If our only goal was to protect society from criminals, we could give them much nicer accommodations. We give the State a monopoly on vengeance because the alternative, a culture of vendetta, is much worse for society, not out of any love for criminals.

Romans 12:19
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.

Peace,

Mike Francis

 

[Peebo]

Sending someone to prison for life isn’t an outlet of revenge? The whole reason for punishing criminals, is revenge. We don’t put them in tiny little cells and subject them to a brutal prison culture out of love. We certainly don’t put them there expecting them to reform. If our only goal was to protect society from criminals, we could give them much nicer accommodations. We give the State a monopoly on vengeance because the alternative, a culture of vendetta, is much worse for society, not out of any love for criminals.

The whole reason for punishing criminals is just that…punishment…where do you get the idea it’s for revenge…

Revenge is a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived. It is also called payback, retribution, retaliation or vengeance; it may be characterized as a form of justice (not to be confused with retributive justice), an altruistic action which enforces societal or moral justice aside from the legal system. Francis Bacon described it as a kind of “wild justice” that "does… offend the law [and] putteth the law out of office

 

[Brendan]

Romans 12:19
Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord.

Peace,

Mike Francis

Do remember that just a few verses later, St. Paul notes that God’s agent for the wrath is the governing authorities

For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it,
for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer

Romans 13:3-4

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

**

The United States is the only Christian country in the western world that still has Capital Punishment…there are non Christian countries …communist countries and some third world countries that still apply the death penalty…to say that it isn’t prudent at this time appears to only apply here in the US…all other western countries including Catholic countries have done away with it…so while it not an immoral act according to the church the last three Popes have spoken out against it…yet why are so many US Catholics opposed to their teaching…is it more cultural here than elsewhere…Protestant Puritan ethics played a large part in the formation of the United States…maybe “an eye for an eye” is still more ingrained in the culture here than other countries…I can’t say I am totally opposed to the death penalty myself in certain cases like terrorism or serial killers or even
cold blooded cases where there is no remorse…I’m sure there are people in those countries that have done away with the death penalty who feel the same also**

I lose track of whether or not we are a Christian nation depending on the argument.

10 Commandments on public property, based on our founding under a Judeo-Christian ethos - not acceptable.

Death penalty being acceptable - not in keeping with us as a Christian nation.

And if we ARE a a Christian nation, why was there any outrage at Ben Carson’s comment about a Muslim leading the country? It would seem his comment makes perfect sense for a Christian nation.

Note I oppose the death penalty by and large because it removes the possibility of repentance and ultimately salvation, for the most part.

 

[Peebo]

I lose track of whether or not we are a Christian nation depending on the argument.

10 Commandments on public property, based on our founding under a Judeo-Christian ethos - not acceptable.

Death penalty being acceptable - not in keeping with us as a Christian nation.

And if we ARE a a Christian nation, why was there any outrage at Ben Carson’s comment about a Muslim leading the country? It would seem his comment makes perfect sense for a Christian nation.

Note I oppose the death penalty by and large because it removes the possibility of repentance and ultimately salvation, for the most part.

I posted on another thread regarding the Popes speech to Congress…I was watching Raymond Arroyo and a priest (can’t remember his name) on EWTN discussing the Popes opposition to the death penalty…both Arroyo and the priest agreed to the opposite of what you said…they agreed that the death penalty may in fact benefit the condemned criminal in that they might seek forgiveness leading to their salvation where as if they were not under sentence of death they may not seek forgiveness…seeing that both the Pope and the US congregation of Bishops oppose the death penalty I found it a strange comment for a commentator and priest on EWTN making such a disturbing comparison that it may actually be beneficial for their salvation to execute people… I don’t know if there is a transcript or video of the program so I am not quoting verbatim…but the assessment I gave is accurate…

 

[JimmyG88]

An ‘eye for an eye’ will just lead to loads of blindness

 

[saggal]

Reading through this thread, the same thought went through my mind, over, and over, and over again …

Welcome to the cafeteria.

 

[Melchior_1]

Reading through this thread, the same thought went through my mind, over, and over, and over again …

Welcome to the cafeteria.

Can you explain?

 

[saggal]

Folks here seem to enjoy pointing their fingers at folks who question Church teaching as “cafeteria Catholics.” CINO (Catholic in Name Only) is another term they use.

So I just found it appropriate to point out that in my experience, both here and among other Catholics, that about 90 percent of us are “cafeteria Catholics.” Conservative Catholics may have different issues, but they’re still picking and choosing what they believe from the catechism and the Pope.

And let’s make this clear – the death penalty stance that Pope Francis used in his Congressional speech nearly word-for-word matches speeches made by both St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict.

 

[Brendan]

And let’s make this clear – the death penalty stance that Pope Francis used in his Congressional speech nearly word-for-word matches speeches made by both St. John Paul II and Pope Emeritus Benedict.

And your point is…

There are some who believe that the death penalty is immoral. Is that cafeteria catholcism as well?

The Catechism states that it is permitted under certain, albeit rare, circumstances.

Do we all agree on that, as Catholics should?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

And your point is…

There are some who believe that the death penalty is immoral. Is that cafeteria catholcism as well?

The Catechism states that it is permitted under certain, albeit rare, circumstances.

Do we all agree on that, as Catholics should?

The death penalty as it exists today is immoral because it precludes the possibility of rehabilitation and does not serve society in any fruitful way. I thought the Pope was clear on that.

 

[Dranu]

Folks here seem to enjoy pointing their fingers at folks who question Church teaching as “cafeteria Catholics.” CINO (Catholic in Name Only) is another term they use.

Careful about throwing around the claim of lack of orthodoxy before fully understanding the scope of what teaching is or is not demanding binding assent on the faithful. Your zeal to conform to the Church is good, just try to know what and where the Church is as well.

 

[eamonnroma]

They’re aren’t many countries who still have the death penalty, about two thirds of countries in the world have now abolished it.

The US stands proud with many nations in allowing the death penalty. Such as: China, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, North Korea, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan.

I notice that Moslem nations allow capital punishment, Saudi Arabia is most energetic in its executions, even crucifying the bodies after they have been beheaded.

Saudi Arabia is also an ally of the most Western countries.

I see that out of the countries we normally consider to be ‘civilised’, the only one allowing the DP is the US.

I cannot understand why ‘loving’ christians do not welcome the Pope’s words on the subject.