Pope repeats Church opposition to death penalty [CWN]

[sw85]

As with Popes John Paul and Benedict, people make it a matter of ‘opinion’ and take liberty to disagree. What they fail to produce, to support their ‘opinions’, are statements from any of the men of the Church, in recent times, that support the death penalty.

Thankfully for us, the teachings of the Church do not consist of what was said “in recent times” but what has been said throughout all of time. Widening the scope past the last 20 years or so, you find the Church has always and everywhere taught that the death penalty is a morally licit punishment. And when you take the words of the current and two most recent Popes in that context, it sounds an awful lot like they are not making a moral judgment of the death penalty but a prudential judgment about the circumstances in which it is to be applied.

I recommend you read this article on the topic by the late Card. Avery Dulles. The issue is not near as simple as “the Pope said X, so shut up.”

 

[curlycool89]

In theory, perhaps. In actuality, probably not.

Since God usually isn’t very forthcoming in doling out justice, what else are we supposed to do? “Oh, God will take care of it. This person is redeemable. We’ll just let him run free until God gets around to it.”

Have you ever read the Bible? At all? Job? Sirach? Ecclesiastes? Most of the book of Psalms?

Romans 12:19 "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord”

Do you have no faith or trust in God?

Thankfully for us, the teachings of the Church do not consist of what was said “in recent times” but what has been said throughout all of time. Widening the scope past the last 20 years or so, you find the Church has always and everywhere taught that the death penalty is a morally licit punishment. And when you take the words of the current and two most recent Popes in that context, it sounds an awful lot like they are not making a moral judgment of the death penalty but a prudential judgment about the circumstances in which it is to be applied.

Oh, so it’s ok to ignore everything the Pope says then as long as he doesn’t explicitly command it then?

It sounds to me like the Church is saying “the death penalty is for extraordinary circumstances, never as a matter of course”. It sounds more to me that the Popes have said “there are times and places where it could be used but those circumstances do not exist in the 1st World and so the death penalty there is not moral”.

The Church says its ok if it’s the “only possible way”. Are you telling me that in a country like the US there is no possible way to keep criminals away from the general population without killing them? Can you cite a study that says so?

 

[CatholicGuy22]

WAKE UP PEOPLE!!! You are Christians first and THEN americans!!! Gosh some you talk like Ronald Reagan died on a cross for you!

 

[Fairwinds]

…

Let’s have a grammar lesson. “Only possible way” by it’s very nature means that all all methods have been tried and found lacking in “effectively defending human lives”. When’s the last time a somebody convicted of 1st degree murder has broken out of a maximum security prison? “Only possible way” should be read as “use only as a last resort”.

Yet people here think it’s totally ok to have the death penalty to be used as a matter of course when other options have not been tried or as a first option. I have news for you. The Church finds those views repugnant and anti-life.

let’s have a statutory interpretation lesson, and one in grammar and logic as well.

the plain language of the CCC does not bar the DP and approves its use for limited purposes. you can’t read this as a total bar. you are making a straw man argument by attempting to limit DP eligible cases to escaped convicts; the DP is perfectly suitable for criminals and terrorists sentenced to life who continue to control gangs or other groups from inside prison, including ordering murders and running narcotics distribution on the outside. there are examples of both easily found online, and in this forum, for that matter. stopping them from communicating with the outside is not possible for legal reasons – attorney client communications privileges and other methods that I’ll probably have to tediously explain again.

I find this especially ironic considering your username.

my name is part of a Navy greeting and farewell and what you think about it I really don’t care.

So tell me. Why does society need protection from the Colorado theatre shooter if he is locked up in a maximum security prison? Isn’t society already sufficiently protected?

that’s another argumentative straw man; the colorado guy isn’t eligible for the DP under the CCC. but since you like argumentative questions, how many innocent victims outside prison are you willing to allow convicted gang leaders to ordered murdered?

 

[curlycool89]

the plain language of the CCC does not bar the DP and approves its use for limited purposes.

As I said, it doesn’t not outlaw it. It just says that the cases are so rare as to be non-existent.

my name is part of a Navy greeting and farewell and what you think about it I really don’t care.

That was aimed at Lost_Sheep, not you.

that’s another argumentative straw man; the colorado guy isn’t eligible for the DP under the CCC. but since you like argumentative questions, how many innocent victims outside prison are you willing to allow convicted gang leaders to ordered murdered?

So tell me, how many people convicted of the death penalty are mob bosses? As a percentage of people sentenced to the death penalty over, oh let’s say the last 50 years?

Here’s a principle in law and normative rules: You can’t make rules based on exceptions.

For example, the common American rule of having the death penalty available for all people convicted of 1st Degree Murder is obviously unjust. If we are to take the CCC at it’s word, then the normal penalty should be life in prison, and after the State (or Crown) could petition for the death penalty if the case merited it. Being able to pursue the death penalty from the start (especially as a bargaining chip in plea bargaining, and let’s not pretend that that doesn’t happen) in all cases does not fit with the CCC definition.

Because let’s be serious here. I can think of an infinite number of cases of 1st degree murder where the death penalty would serve no purpose to protect society above and beyond life in prison (a jealous husband plans and murders his wife for example) and only a few cases where it would do more (the mob boss cases). The death penalty, as the CCC implicitly states, is to be an exception and not the rule.

So can we at least agree that many State Laws are violating this principle by allowing for the death penalty to be prescribed as a general rule (such as for 1st Degree murder)?

 

[dnar]

The Church finds those views repugnant and anti-life.

Apparently you failed to read the Old Testament at all. The Death Penalty was sanctioned by God.

Has the Church decided to fight against God now?

To answer your other question. Check here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_escape

The death penalty is sometimes the only option.

 

[dnar]

Are you telling me that in a country like the US there is no possible way to keep criminals away from the general population without killing them? Can you cite a study that says so?

There are several examples, a simple google search for escaped murderers that murder again in the United States will reveal them…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I will quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church, hopefully this is good enough for you…

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a 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 definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

Now, this is exactly what I said, ‘if there is no other way’ I fully support the death penalty when capital crimes are committed.

The Church fully supports the death penalty in these cases, thats what the ‘official’ teaching says…if the Popes are not aware of it, maybe they themselves need to read it…

Nothing changed, and I don’t believe the Pope is mistaken in repeating opposition as the ‘Church’s’. The quote I provided, came from the same section you copied.

With the entire excerpt from the Catechism, it still states, “…if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means…”

 

[dnar]

Nothing changed, and I don’t believe the Pope is mistaken in repeating opposition as the ‘Church’s’. The quote I provided, came from the same section you copied.

With the entire excerpt from the Catechism, it still states, “…if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means…”

And with this I am in complete agreement. Which, allows me to support the death penalty and advocate for its existence, not total abandonment.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thankfully for us, the teachings of the Church do not consist of what was said “in recent times” but what has been said throughout all of time. Widening the scope past the last 20 years or so, you find the Church has always and everywhere taught that the death penalty is a morally licit punishment. And when you take the words of the current and two most recent Popes in that context, it sounds an awful lot like they are not making a moral judgment of the death penalty but a prudential judgment about the circumstances in which it is to be applied.

I recommend you read this article on the topic by the late Card. Avery Dulles. The issue is not near as simple as “the Pope said X, so shut up.”

Thankfully for us??? So it was used differently in past times dismiss what our current leaders call us to? I am not going to dismiss Popes John Paul, Benedict, or Francis as wrong. They are more in tune with all Church teachings, and scriptures than I am.

Show me the man of the Church that speaks in favor of the death penalty in these times?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Apparently you failed to read the Old Testament at all. The Death Penalty was sanctioned by God.

Has the Church decided to fight against God now?

To answer your other question. Check here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_escape

The death penalty is sometimes the only option.

And men misunderstood the law in Christ’s time. He corrected them. He was the new and everlasting covenant, that replaced the old covenant. But if you want to go to the Old Testament, why did God protect Cain from men?

Heb 8:7 For if that former had been faultless, there should not indeed a place have been sought for a second.
Heb 8:8 For, finding fault with them, he saith: Behold the days shall come, saith the Lord: and I will perfect, unto the house of Israel and unto the house of Juda, a new testament:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt: because they continued not in my testament: and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give my laws into their mind: and in their heart will I write them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord. For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them.
Heb 8:12 Because I will be merciful to their iniquities: and their sins I will remember no more.
Heb 8:13 Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old is near its end.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And with this I am in complete agreement. Which, allows me to support the death penalty and advocate for its existence, not total abandonment.

The difference is in authority. The men of the Church are authoritative in guiding us.

 

[dnar]

The difference is in authority. The men of the Church are authoritative in guiding us.

I submit to the Holy Father’s authority, and the Bishops, I do…BUT the Catechism says I can support the death penalty in rare circumstances.

It seems contradictory for the Holy Father to call for the death penalty to be abolished while the Church’s official teaching says we can accept it in rare occasions.

 

[dnar]

And men misunderstood the law in Christ’s time. He corrected them. He was the new and everlasting covenant, that replaced the old covenant. But if you want to go to the Old Testament, why did God protect Cain from men?

Misunderstanding the law? Genesis 9:6, was pretty clear to me…there was no room for misunderstandings here.

Why was Cain afraid that he would be killed by men? Because it was allowed even then.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I submit to the Holy Father’s authority, and the Bishops, I do…BUT the Catechism says I can support the death penalty in rare circumstances.

It seems contradictory for the Holy Father to call for the death penalty to be abolished while the Church’s official teaching says we can accept it in rare occasions.

Practically non-existent circumstances, where public safety requires such measures only.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Misunderstanding the law? Genesis 9:6, was pretty clear to me…there was no room for misunderstandings here.

Why was Cain afraid that he would be killed by men? Because it was allowed even then.

I provided the excerpt from Hebrews that explains old and new, and it’s very clear. With that said, I yield to the greater understanding of scriptures, and Church teachings, to the authoritative men. Martin Luther showed the danger of proclaiming self understanding as greater.

Yet, God protected Cain.

 

[dnar]

I provided the excerpt from Hebrews that explains old and new, and it’s very clear. With that said, I yield to the greater understanding of scriptures, and Church teachings, to the authoritative men. Martin Luther showed the danger of proclaiming self understanding as greater.

Yet, God protected Cain.

God protecting Cain would start a whole new level of misunderstandings, as to why he doesn’t protect the countless other thousands that were killed for their crimes, why did he only pick one person…

You are correct about Martin Luther.

The Catechism says I can support the death penalty, and I will. I don’t have much more to say on the issue except the Church says I can, so I will.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

God protecting Cain would start a whole new level of misunderstandings, as to why he doesn’t protect the countless other thousands that were killed for their crimes, why did he only pick one person…

You are correct about Martin Luther.

The Catechism says I can support the death penalty, and I will. I don’t have much more to say on the issue except the Church says I can, so I will.

And what limits are there with your support?

If this were a mere ‘opinion,’ it shouldn’t be too hard to find men of the Church who voice an opinion supporting the death penalty. Would you care to show us?

 

[dnar]

And what limits are there with your support?

If this were a mere ‘opinion,’ it shouldn’t be too hard to find men of the Church who voice an opinion supporting the death penalty. Would you care to show us?

Are you wanting evidence from the Church Fathers? Because St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas both were supporters of the death penalty?

Or are you wanting current Bishops that are alive today?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment

It has reverences, so don’t bash the wikipedia link…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you wanting evidence from the Church Fathers? Because St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas both were supporters of the death penalty?

Or are you wanting current Bishops that are alive today?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_capital_punishment

It has reverences, so don’t bash the wikipedia link…

Today, in fact, as a 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 definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

As penal systems have changed over the years, which seems to be John Paul’s point about the state having effective possibilities to prevent crime, it would seem an important factor to provide a comment from a man of the Church in the same time period. What was true for society in Aquinas’, or Augustine’s time, is not true today, particularly in the penal systems.

If the men of the Church today are united, it would seem to means something else entirely, when one would consider to place their own opinion above them.