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

[Suudy]

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.

Italy stands proud with many nations in barring gay marriage. Such as: China, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, North Korea, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan.

Really, these kinds of comparisons are meaningless.

 

[Brendan]

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.

It is imprudent for those reasons (or more specifically, because it does not serve society)

But that does not make it an immoral act.

Here is the Council of Trent on the 5th Commandment

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

The end of the Commandment* is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

As I mentioned above, the use of this right can be imprudent, but it cannot be, of itself, an immoral act. The Church has been pretty clear on that.

 

[Ender]

If non-lethal means are just as good, or better, at achieving the goals of punishment and protecting society, then society should limit itself to these, as they would then be more consistent with respect for life.

Protecting society is one of the goals of punishment, so this comment is a little redundant, and it should be recognized that protection is only a secondary objective. I agree with this assertion, however: if the goals of punishment can be achieved without capital punishment it would be better not to use it. Conversely of course, if those goals cannot be achieved without it, then it ought to be used. Here’s the point though: determining whether those goals are met is a judgment, and while one position may be more accurate than the other, neither is more moral than the other.

Whether non-lethal means are sufficient is a matter of debate.

Yes, exactly. This is why it is not immoral to support capital punishment.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

I don’t think this can be true. The primary objective of all punishment is retribution - retributive justice. A punishment is just only if it is commensurate with the severity of the crime; neither more nor less than the criminal deserves. If we say that capital punishment is not justified as retribution - that is, it is too severe a punishment for the crime - then how can anything justify it? Is it reasonable to say we may execute a person we believe is a threat even though we don’t believe he deserves to die? How can we possibly believe it is right to execute a person for a crime he has not committed while holding it to be wrong to execute him for the crime he has committed?

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.

If anyone wants to understand why it is appropriate to hold a different opinion on the use of capital punishment than the one the pope has expressed it is surely this: that we “***seem *to have the means” is a practical judgment which we are clearly free to determine for ourselves.

Ender

 

[ucfengr]

Peebo:
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…

That was an argument alluded to by Aquinas in “Summa Contra Gentiles” chapter 146.

“Finally, the fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at the critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgment that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.”

So it is not without pedigree in the Church.

 

[Ender]

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.

Rehabilitation is a valid objective of punishment, but it is not the primary objective and of itself cannot determine the extent of the punishment. Nor is it accurate to suggest that the death penalty precludes the possibility of rehabilitation when in fact it can act as an incentive to it. The church clearly recognizes that possibility and even cites an example of it in her call for the rehabilitation of the criminal.(CCC 2266)* Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.(67)*
*(67) Lk 23: 40-43 - ref the salvation of the good thief
*Ender

 

[Path_Finder]

It is interesting that the Pope mentioned the Death Penalty where by and large, this is a state issue. Those executed for federal offenses is a very small number of persons. I believe Timothy McVeigh was and Tsarnaev, the younger brother will be for the Boston Marathon Bombing. So, some have questioned why it was mentioned. Could it have had a larger meaning?

 

[estesbob]

It seems that the Pope has once again pressed for the end of the death penalty. Because of past discussions on the subject I know that many catholics are in favour of this.

Perhaps now the subject will finally be put to rest and people will understand that the deliberate killing of a human life, as in the death penalty, is wrong.

Moderator: Link to news story per forum rule: washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/24/pope-francis-tells-congress-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

I oppose the death penalty,Pope Francis opposes the death penalty BUT the Church does now and always has allowed for. Unlike abortion it is not an intrinsic evil. There is nothing wrong with a Catholic supporting the death penalty

 

[LongingSoul]

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?

It’s permitted by virtue of the natural law principle of self defense but as a civil institution, it is no longer warranted. To argue that it serves a divine purpose despite doing more harm than good to the community is going beyond Catholic teaching.

 

[Ender]

It’s permitted by virtue of the natural law principle of self defense …

The church does not argue that capital punishment is valid as a form of self defense. She has always recognized it as an issue separate from defense. Valid self defense includes the restriction that the death of the aggressor be an unintended consequence of the action. Since the intent of the act of execution is precisely the death of the prisoner, the act does not meet the requirement of self defense.

To argue that it serves a divine purpose despite doing more harm than good to the community is going beyond Catholic teaching.

No one suggests it should be used if it does more harm than good. The actual question is whether or not that assertion is accurate.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

It sounds like you’re saying you don’t like the death penalty, but prison rape is okay.

Really? Did you not read the post or did you simply want to make crazy stuff up? This is either a straw man or a false dichotomy, depending one whether you really believe this was what the poster means.

 

[pnewton]

FYI - This is the third consecutive Pope that has taught this. It is not surprising that with our culture of death that we continue to have abortion and the death penalty. We are willing even to stand with our fellow death penalty advocates, China, Iran and North Korea.

 

[Thomas_White]

It is not prudent to do at this time, but that act itself is not an immoral one.

So if you are saying that it is wrong in that it has the potential to put God’s Justice in a hypocritical light, and therefore should not be used, I agree 100% with you.

If you are saying that it is wrong, in that it is an immoral act itself, then both I and the Church disagree with you.

The following is what #2267 of the CCC provides in its section entitled ‘The Fifth Commandment’:

"Today, in fact, in consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm–without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself–the cases in which the execution of the offender are absolutely necessary ‘are very rare, if not virtually non-existent.’ "

This is Catholic teaching as was promulgated by John Paul II.

 

[ichabode]

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). Both my mother and I feel that him being in prison was sufficient. Would we have liked him locked up longer? Hell yes! Do we want him dead? No, we don’t.

Mind you, all of this begs the question; what crimes are worthy of being put to death? Could one not say that what he did to me was sufficient, thereby making it not just rape and murder?

My heart goes out to you and your suffering. I feel at times the hardest cross we bear is the one that resembles the cross that Jesus bore, which is to take on the sins of another. Such stories opens the faithfuls ears to hear the cries that go forth to the Lord.

I feel the most merciful verdict of justice would have been the death penalty. The death penalty should not be restricted solely to capital crimes, but high crimes against society, and if the family is the keystone to society then his crimes warranted his pronounced death, so that society is protected. The society of those that make up the population outside of prison, AND THE SOCIETY OF THOSE INSIDE A PRISON.

You and others have talked about how “justice” was done to him inside the prison society. The leaders of the Church must come to recognize that it is NOT merciful and charitable to unleash monsters on criminals who are serving time, and can could have been rehabilitated back into the society outside of prison.

What those criminals did to your father, they also do to those you who stole a car, or robbed a store, or were convicted of manslaughter charges, or are there for whatever crime to serve two to four years of time.

We must quit saying look at my heart I don’t believe in the death penalty, and the death penalty is barbaric. The people who say that should reread the social encyclicals and this time have REAL compassion on those who are in prison. The compassion they should have, and not the ones were we unleash monsters against those in prison. Those monsters beget other monsters, and then they are released into the society outside of prison to perform more heinous acts. After that we all feign a charity and sympathy for the new victims. The victims that we participated in making, by thinking our society is protected, so to hell with those in prison.

Those who are against the death penalty need to wake up, rethink your position, and quit living in ivory tower or else take ownership for those atrocious crimes that happen inside the prison society, and those that take place by the monsters who have served time that we participated in their making.

 

[ichabode]

The following is what #2267 of the CCC provides in its section entitled ‘The Fifth Commandment’:

"Today, in fact, in consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm–without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself–the cases in which the execution of the offender are absolutely necessary ‘are very rare, if not virtually non-existent.’ "

This is Catholic teaching as was promulgated by John Paul II.

Yes, but often times it takes awhile for people to wake up to the understanding of what is going on. If the state cannot prevent a repeat offender from doing harm to others inside the society of prison then it has a DUTY to execute that prison to safeguard our societies (plural) outside and inside.

It is only very rare if you strictly or only consider the society outside of prison.

 

[pnewton]

. The leaders of the Church must come to recognize that it is NOT merciful and charitable to unleash monsters on criminals who are serving time, and can could have been rehabilitated back into the society outside of prison.

Except these are not the only two options.

 

[ichabode]

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.

I 100% percent disagree. We have a trial, and there are appeals. What is the average wait time for death row inmates to be put to death. I assume you mean rehabilitation is the sense of conversion and owning up to their sins and the wrong they have done. If you mean releasing them then WOW. I hope they are not released next door to my family.

Many people only seek God when the end is near. How many people find peace in God’s make a good confession when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness? It too often plays out that the person running from God will keep running if no wall is thrown up in the blind alleyways they sprint. It is only one they are forced to stop (at time and date that heralds the end of ones life) that they surrender to God, and allow for the time to simply be loved by the creator.

I truly feel what you posted is not indicative of what we see day in and day out of our lives. It reads more like something made up to make own feel good.

 

[sallybutler]

The death penalty is the easy way to deal with a criminal. Much like abortion, any future problems are whisked away by destroying the problem. Unlike abortion, we forgive the .person that actually kills the criminal, after all, they are only an anonymous instrument of the state.

What is the difference between an abortion doctor and the person that hires him and a stare employed executioner? Is the executioner forgiven because he is acting on behalf of the state, while the abortionist isn’t because he is acting on behalf of the individual?

 

[CaptFun]

It seems that the Pope has once again pressed for the end of the death penalty. Because of past discussions on the subject I know that many catholics are in favour of this.

Perhaps now the subject will finally be put to rest and people will understand that the deliberate killing of a human life, as in the death penalty, is wrong.

Moderator: Link to news story per forum rule: washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/09/24/pope-francis-tells-congress-the-death-penalty-should-be-abolished/

I preferred this headline on the mixed thread.

“Every Life is Sacred” points more to the millions of abortions that are taking place than “death penalty executions” that aren’t. IMO.

Emphasizing the “handful” over the “millions of buckets full” would be a sort of “straining out the gnat” while we “swallow the camel” that abortions matter LESS (and that the death penalty is what the Pope REALLY is emphasizing)! :nope: < IMO.

While the Church itself admits that states have rights that individuals don’t regarding capital punishment. And while it IS in the Old Testament as a recommended punishment for some sins. Francis does speak against its application (in most cases … unto … not QUITE all?).

There may well be cafeteria Catholics who declare themselves dispensed from their pro-life duties per abortion because they oppose capital punishment ***instead. *** But that is not what Francis is recommending.

 

[sallybutler]

I 100% percent disagree. We have a trial, and there are appeals. What is the average wait time for death row inmates to be put to death. I assume you mean rehabilitation is the sense of conversion and owning up to their sins and the wrong they have done. If you mean releasing them then WOW. I hope they are not released next door to my family.

Many people only seek God when the end is near. How many people find peace in God’s make a good confession when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness? It too often plays out that the person running from God will keep running if no wall is thrown up in the blind alleyways they sprint. It is only one they are forced to stop (at time and date that heralds the end of ones life) that they surrender to God, and allow for the time to simply be loved by the creator.

I truly feel what you posted is not indicative of what we see day in and day out of our lives. It reads more like something made up to make own feel good.

So should we threaten everyone with death so that they will accept Christ?