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

[ichabode]

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

Do you think I would say yes to such a question? Are we talking about everyone, or are we talking about those who have committed crimes like child rape, murder, and other heinous acts against society. I do not have to threaten death to anyone it will come to us all. I cannot name a single person where death has not come to them or will not come to him/her at some point.

I do wish that the name of Jesus be spoken everywhere. I wish that for all who have, are or will travel down a pathway that is dark and lonesome we might be nailed down, so the hound of heaven which pursued us all our life becomes our salvation. I do wish everyone would see themselves as St. Dimas and do the one and only thing we can do as sinners to cry out to Jesus to remember us.

Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.
Let us pray to the Lord.
Lord hear our prayers.

 

[Thomas_White]

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.

In the U.S., there is a prison system where such violent offenders can be and indeed are isolated, and I believe that is what the CCC means by the state having the “means for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm”, and why cases in which execution are necessary are “very rare, if not virtually non-existent”.

Beyond what the CCC has until now provided, Pope Francis has now said capital punishment is unacceptable. This is Catholic teaching. If this is rejected in favor of capital punishment, then just say so.

 

[sallybutler]

Do you think I would say yes to such a question? Are we talking about everyone, or are we talking about those who have committed crimes like child rape, murder, and other heinous acts against society. I do not have to threaten death to anyone it will come to us all. I cannot name a single person where death has not come to them or will not come to him/her at some point.

I do wish that the name of Jesus be spoken everywhere. I wish that for all who have, are or will travel down a pathway that is dark and lonesome we might be nailed down, so the hound of heaven which pursued us all our life becomes our salvation. I do wish everyone would see themselves as St. Dimas and do the one and only thing we can do as sinners to cry out to Jesus to remember us.

Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.
Let us pray to the Lord.
Lord hear our prayers.

Of course you can not say yes to such a question. I would wonder about you if you could.

Yet, recently there are those who suggest that a reason for continuing the death penalty is that these people will only be able to accept God with the threat of death hanging over them. The logical conclusion of that logic is extremely scary

 

[Ender]

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?

There are certain significant differences between the two actions (abortion and execution) that it is inappropriate to overlook. The first involves the critical difference between guilt and innocence, a difference the church has been at pains to maintain.*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. *(Catechism of Trent)

*Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being… *(CCC 2261)

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?

The short answer is yes, the executioner is not at fault because he is an instrument of the state and the state has the right to execute criminals. The abortionist is condemned for two reasons: he has no right to take anyone’s life, and even the state has no right to take the life of an innocent person. *And so, when by public authority a malefactor is put to death, it is not called murder, but an act of justice: and whereas the commandment of God saith: Thou shalt not kill, it is understood, by thy private authority. *(St. Bellarmine)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Pope Francis has now said capital punishment is unacceptable. This is Catholic teaching. If this is rejected in favor of capital punishment, then just say so.

It really is important to understand that not even the pope nor the Magisterium can simply invent doctrine. Pope Francis has no more power to create the doctrine on capital punishment now than the previous 260+ popes had to create it in the first place. Truth is not theirs to invent. However you define Catholic teaching, Catholic doctrine on capital punishment has not changed. Francis’ comments, like those of his two predecessors, are judgments, not doctrines.*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

 

[ichabode]

In the U.S., there is a prison system where such violent offenders can be and indeed are isolated, and I believe that is what the CCC means by the state having the “means for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm”, and why cases in which execution are necessary are “very rare, if not virtually non-existent”.

Beyond what the CCC has until now provided, Pope Francis has now said capital punishment is unacceptable. This is Catholic teaching. If this is rejected in favor of capital punishment, then just say so.

What a Pope says to a countries congress is not binding on Catholics. What Pope Francis wishes in not doctrine. He was speaking to our countries congress men and women, and to make the leap that to be a faithful Catholic I have to believe everything that comes out of his mouth is not nor has it ever been part of Catholic teaching.

Again what you are saying and you should admit it is that you believe it is charitable to lock up into a group aka society offenders to be preyed upon day and night. Of course if they are all violent offenders then you must agree it is very Christian and merciful for them to be raped and killed in prison after all they are criminals right. Unless you think we have some prison system out there that keeps every person isolated from other human beings entirely like a system of solitary confinement and numerous amounts of guards etc to sustain a system like that. Perhaps you mean that that keeping the many violent offenders for decades locked up by themselves isolated from others is somehow more merciful. Have you seen the affects of prisoners who have been kept in solitary confinement? There is a reason that is a punishment used to try and keep a prison population in check.

Like many who follow the good idea fairies that make themselves feel good about their decisions when you think it through it is just untenable and lacks the mercy and dignity which we should strive for all people. Those who have proven they cannot live in a society does not mean we stick them in a society we deem unfit. If they cannot live in a society you must have recourse for the death penalty. Though hard and never to taken lightly, those who have proven they cannot live in society without preying on others leave on choice which is merciful and that is isolation for a limited time while they await the death penalty, so they cannot violate and harm another person.

 

[Thomas_White]

What a Pope says to a countries congress is not binding on Catholics. What Pope Francis wishes in not doctrine. He was speaking to our countries congress men and women, and to make the leap that to be a faithful Catholic I have to believe everything that comes out of his mouth is not nor has it ever been part of Catholic teaching.

Again what you are saying and you should admit it is that you believe it is charitable to lock up into a group aka society offenders to be preyed upon day and night. Of course if they are all violent offenders then you must agree it is very Christian and merciful for them to be raped and killed in prison after all they are criminals right. Unless you think we have some prison system out there that keeps every person isolated from other human beings entirely like a system of solitary confinement and numerous amounts of guards etc to sustain a system like that. Perhaps you mean that that keeping the many violent offenders for decades locked up by themselves isolated from others is somehow more merciful. Have you seen the affects of prisoners who have been kept in solitary confinement? There is a reason that is a punishment used to try and keep a prison population in check.

Like many who follow the good idea fairies that make themselves feel good about their decisions when you think it through it is just untenable and lacks the mercy and dignity which we should strive for all people. Those who have proven they cannot live in a society does not mean we stick them in a society we deem unfit. If they cannot live in a society you must have recourse for the death penalty. Though hard and never to taken lightly, those who have proven they cannot live in society without preying on others leave on choice which is merciful and that is isolation for a limited time while they await the death penalty, so they cannot violate and harm another person.

Rather than delivering an unnecessary lecture and telling me what I am saying, it would be better to look at #2267 of the CCC. It provides that cases in which execution is absolutely necessary are “very rare, if not practically non-existent”. Pope John Paul II said that in an advanced society like the U.S., cases in which execution is necessary are “virtually non-existent”.

Is it understood what “practically non-existent” means? It means in practice, in the U.S., the necessity of execution does not exist. This is not what I have said but what the CCC provides.

 

[pnewton]

What a Pope says to a countries congress is not binding on Catholics.

The word “binding” is not one I have ever heard the Pope use. He is teaching and advising in these speeches, not binding. However, what he said cannot be dismissed, but should be considered in light of all the Church does teach. As I said earlier, he is not the first Pope to say the death penalty should not exist today. He is the third. No pope has supported it in decades. When we think of what the world was like in 1968 when this issue was first addressed by Pope Paul VI abolishing the death penalty in Vatican City, I would think we can agree that we have not done well at advancing the cause of life along side capital punishment. If society can remove its problem by killing it, we both devalue life and strengthen the choice of death.

 

[ichabode]

Rather than delivering an unnecessary lecture and telling me what I am saying, it would be better to look at #2267 of the CCC. It provides that cases in which execution is absolutely necessary are “very rare, if not practically non-existent”. Pope John Paul II said that in an advanced society like the U.S., cases in which execution is necessary are “virtually non-existent”.

Is it understood what “practically non-existent” means? It means in practice, in the U.S., the necessity of execution does not exist. This is not what I have said but what the CCC provides.

CCC2267 is clear it is not a sin for a society to recourse to the death penalty. If you look at the percent of the population in the U.S. to where people have been convicted of the death penalty it is already extremely rare. What I am saying is that with the development of doctrine the Church and the faithful have a duty to study the social encyclicals and documents of the Church and scripture when any teaching is challenged for a fuller examination of its meaning to not bury the heads in the sand. The Church has made great strides in the idea that a society can protect itself from criminals but it has failed miserably in applying or seeing that those in prison are also in a society. Therefore if you say we can protect our society but putting prisoners who should be on death row into a prison population then you do not have mercy and charity for the other criminals that will have violent acts perpetuated upon them. We are only starting to scratch the surface of this issue and an entire side has been ignored . This debate and understanding is far from over, and just because the Holy Father fails to see this, or even Saint Pope John Paul II does not mean we abandon those in prison.

 

[ichabode]

However, what he said cannot be dismissed, but should be considered in light of all the Church does teach. As I said earlier, he is not the first Pope to say the death penalty should not exist today. He is the third. No pope has supported it in decades. I would think we can agree that we have not done well at advancing the cause of life along side capital punishment. If society can remove its problem by killing it, we both devalue life and strengthen the choice of death.

I agree whole heatedly we need to look at what the last three Popes have said on the issue in light of all the Church does teach. We should have a culture of life. I disagree that somehow by removing capital punishment and protecting one part of society at the expense of another society is true Christian charity. I honestly do not feel it has been thought out carefully enough. I too for years held the position which St. JPII preached about not using the death penalty, but, in my own case, through prayer and reflection on the Church social teaching and prison ministry and realized that prison is a society as well.

I ask each and every person to consider if when they have read and talked about “We do not need the death penalty because we can protect society without killing them”, how often did you ever consider the society of prison. Do they not have a right to be protected from those who would rape and murder? Should criminals in jail be afraid that in order to do their time they will have to join a gang, or will the become subject to sexual predators, or even killed?

 

[Tony_Micelli]

catholics may only kill as a matter of last resort in defense of life. killing someone out of vengence, mercy or for punishment is not acceptable. this is current catholic teaching and is why our Holy Father is asking congress to abolish the death penalty.

 

[pnewton]

I honestly do not feel it has been thought out carefully enough…I ask each and every person to consider if when they have read and talked about “We do not need the death penalty because we can protect society without killing them”, how often did you ever consider the society of prison. Do they not have a right to be protected from those who would rape and murder? Should criminals in jail be afraid that in order to do their time they will have to join a gang, or will the become subject to sexual predators, or even killed?

Yes, I have thought about this. In fact, since it is one area I held out against what St. John Paul taught, I probably have put more effort into understanding this than any other catholic teaching. I will agree with you that there are a few, a very few, that we cannot safely incarcerate without re-defining cruel and unusual punishment. I do not agree that the death penalty is related to the level of rape or murder in prisons. I believe that to be a false dichotomy. I believe all states now keep death row inmate isolated. I do not know of a single case where one of these in isolations have raped or killed anyone since St. John Paul was pope. ( I actually no of know before that, but I was not actively involve before that.)

In the end, what convinced me is the importance of changing our culture of death. The difference in risk between housing someone for ten to twenty years until they are executed, or housing them longer into their old age is not worth the price we pay as society in failing to learn the lesson of the value and dignity of all life. I do not know if we will turn the tide on abortion and euthanasia, but I am convinced we will not gain any ground while we continue to stand with countries like North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq in leading the world in executing its criminals. I believe (honestly feel, that is) that our pro-life arguments will ring hollow with a lack of moral authority.

 

[Brendan]

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?

More specifically, there is nothing to forgive the executioner of, as there is no moral wrong done by him.

 

[Thomas_White]

It really is important to understand that not even the pope nor the Magisterium can simply invent doctrine. Pope Francis has no more power to create the doctrine on capital punishment now than the previous 260+ popes had to create it in the first place. Truth is not theirs to invent. However you define Catholic teaching, Catholic doctrine on capital punishment has not changed. Francis’ comments, like those of his two predecessors, are judgments, not doctrines.*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

Please see paragraphs 8-9 in the link provided below from the Ava Maria Law Review:

highbeam.com/doc/1G1-186319487.html

 

[Thomas_White]

It really is important to understand that not even the pope nor the Magisterium can simply invent doctrine. Pope Francis has no more power to create the doctrine on capital punishment now than the previous 260+ popes had to create it in the first place. Truth is not theirs to invent. However you define Catholic teaching, Catholic doctrine on capital punishment has not changed. Francis’ comments, like those of his two predecessors, are judgments, not doctrines.*In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *(Cardinal Dulles)
Ender

Please see paragraphs 8-9 and the last four paragraphs preceeding Section II of an article from the Ava Maria Law Review:

highbeam.com/doc/1G1-186319487.html

 

[saggal]

Wow. That cafeteria door must be spinnin’ now.

 

[Ender]

Please see paragraphs 8-9 and the last four paragraphs preceeding Section II of an article from the Ava Maria Law Review:

highbeam.com/doc/1G1-186319487.html

Thank you for providing this citation. It doesn’t include the entire article, however I was able to find a complete document here.

Regarding paragraphs 8-9 -*it has been dismissed as merely the personal opinion of the Pope, a “prudential” judgment easily rejected by those who prefer their own expertise.
*This is not merely glib, but insulting. There are valid reasons for believing the pope’s comments are in fact prudential (as several well respected individuals have claimed), and this statement simply dismisses the position as personal weakness.
*Like all authentic Christian doctrine, it was complete with the apostolic teaching, but is capable of deeper understanding by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If authentic Christian doctrine was complete with the apostles then to what degree can it be changed? It is clearly true that a deeper understanding can develop with time, but the question is: can that deeper understanding include a repudiation of what has been taught? The author recognizes this problem when he asserts about JPII that:
He understood that this teaching had to be faithful to Tradition but also needed to find a fresh formulation…

He faced a dilemma of how to reconcile the** history of the infliction of capital punishment in Christian society with the historic Christian witness against death—and solved it with one concise stroke. By distinguishing the legitimate use of capital punishment to protect society from direct aggression from its illegitimate use for other purposes, such as a supposed retribution or deterrence, we are able to understand fully, in some ways for the first time, the Church’s Tradition as it has unfolded in history.
*I think the author’s entire thesis rests on the validity of this assertion. So, is it true?

In CCC 2266 we find a description of the primary objective of all punishment:
*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.
*Redressing the disorder is nothing other than retribution - retributive justice. As Cardinal Dulles explained, punishment has four objectives: protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. The point is, protection is only a secondary objective, so if capital punishment cannot be justified by the demands of the primary objective, how can it be justified by the needs of a secondary one?

I asked this question earlier: if a person does not deserve to die because of the heinous nature of the crime he has committed, how can we justify killing him for a crime he has not committed?

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree whole heatedly we need to look at what the last three Popes have said on the issue in light of all the Church does teach. We should have a culture of life. I disagree that somehow by removing capital punishment and protecting one part of society at the expense of another society is true Christian charity. I honestly do not feel it has been thought out carefully enough. I too for years held the position which St. JPII preached about not using the death penalty, but, in my own case, through prayer and reflection on the Church social teaching and prison ministry and realized that prison is a society as well.

I ask each and every person to consider if when they have read and talked about “We do not need the death penalty because we can protect society without killing them”, how often did you ever consider the society of prison. Do they not have a right to be protected from those who would rape and murder? Should criminals in jail be afraid that in order to do their time they will have to join a gang, or will the become subject to sexual predators, or even killed?

Why can’t the worst of the worst still stay isolated from less risky prisoners? Can’t they just change the name above the door to Death Row to “Lifetime Row” or “Mercy Shown them Row” or “Maximum Security”. I can’t really see the system suddenly putting psychotic serial killers in with tax evaders once the death penalty is removed.

 

[Thomas_White]

Thank you for providing this citation. It doesn’t include the entire article, however I was able to find a complete document here.

Regarding paragraphs 8-9 -it has been dismissed as merely the personal opinion of the Pope, a “prudential” judgment easily rejected by those who prefer their own expertise.
This is not merely glib, but insulting. There are valid reasons for believing the pope’s comments are in fact prudential (as several well respected individuals have claimed), and this statement simply dismisses the position as personal weakness.
Like all authentic Christian doctrine, it was complete with the apostolic teaching, but is capable of deeper understanding by the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
If authentic Christian doctrine was complete with the apostles then to what degree can it be changed? It is clearly true that a deeper understanding can develop with time, but the question is: can that deeper understanding include a repudiation of what has been taught? The author recognizes this problem when he asserts about JPII that:
He understood that this teaching had to be faithful to Tradition but also needed to find a fresh formulation…*

He faced a dilemma of how to reconcile the** history of the infliction of capita*l punishment in Christian society with the historic Christian witness against death—and solved it with one concise stroke. By distinguishing the legitimate use of capital punishment to protect society from direct aggression from its illegitimate use for other purposes, such as a supposed retribution or deterrence, we are able to understand fully, in some ways for the first time, the Church’s Tradition as it has unfolded in history.
I think the author’s entire thesis rests on the validity of this assertion. So, is it true?

In CCC 2266 we find a description of the primary objective of all punishment:
*The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.
*Redressing the disorder is nothing other than retribution - retributive justice. As Cardinal Dulles explained, punishment has four objectives: protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution. The point is, protection is only a secondary objective, so if capital punishment cannot be justified by the demands of the primary objective, how can it be justified by the needs of a secondary one?

I asked this question earlier: if a person does not deserve to die because of the heinous nature of the crime he has committed, how can we justify killing him for a crime he has not committed?

Ender

Please refer to #846-848 of the CCC for an understanding of how even dogma, in this instance as promulgated by Pope Pius XI, can be ‘reformulated’ (i.e., modified), as it was here by Vatican II and Pope John Paul II.

 

[Ender]

Please refer to #846-848 of the CCC for an understanding of how even dogma, in this instance as promulgated by Pope Pius XI, can be ‘reformulated’ (i.e., modified), as it was here by Vatican II and Pope John Paul II.

I have already acknowledged that doctrine can develop, but there is a limit to what constitutes “reformulation” and surely that limit excludes repudiation. It is not enough to say change is possible. I think the debate hinges on the nature of the teaching in 2267. Furthermore, I reject the assertion in the article that the story of Cain represents the basis of this new teaching. This assertion seems doubtful:*the question of how to punish heinous crime is answered with a decisive rejection of death because God chose not to slay Cain
*There are other reasonable interpretations of that story, and given that the church throughout her history has not referenced it in her comments on capital punishment, it seems a bit late to give it that interpretation now. This is especially true in light of the fact that, while this story is in the fourth chapter of Genesis, later in that book (chapter 9) God explicitly calls for the execution of murderers. Are we to believe that God can’t make up his mind on this topic?

The author goes on to say that JPII claimed:The state is obliged to punish an offender against public order* and safety, but not to do so beyond limits set by the needs of society **and standards of human dignity.
*Determining the needs of society is clearly a prudential judgment, but what of the implication that executions go “beyond…standards of human dignity”? Can this be true? If the death penalty really exceeds that standard then how can it be justified under any circumstances? We know, however, that the Catechism itself justifies its use in certain limited cases, which can only mean that even this new formulation does not judge its use to exceed human dignity.

Regarding 2267 the author asserts:
First, paragraph 2267 expressly states that it represents the “traditional teaching of the Church.”** It does not** claim to be a variation of the traditional teaching, or a departure from it, but the** Tradition** itself.
It is true that this is what is claimed, but the claim itself is inaccurate. The statement of what constitutes the Traditional teaching is different even between the first and second editions of the Catechism. The second edition contains the caveat that capital punishment is acceptable “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” That restriction is not found anywhere in previous church documents. It does not represent the Traditional teaching. The first edition had correct:*The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. *(2266)
The defense of life restriction is not part of the Traditional teaching.

Ender