Pope repeats Church opposition to death penalty [CWN]

[JMJSHJ]

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?

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?

How about Cardinal Ratzinger in his document:

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion
General Principles
by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Also you are incorrect in your assessment about Scripture.

Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew 5:17:

Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

 

[curlycool89]

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?

And all our lives are God’s. The OT laws, if I remember the swath of them right, were to keep the nation of Israel from falling into the idolatry of the nations around them.

The Levitical Laws also subscribed putting a leper apart from the whole tribe and making anyone who came in contact with them ritually unclean. Now we have a Saint (St. Damien) who was canonized for living among them and trying all he could to help them. His life is worthy of imitation according to the Church.

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

So because in the past there have been rare prison breaks (the exception to the rule as it were), we should allow the death penalty across the board for some crimes on the off chance that this person should happen to break free?

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.

What really matters is what circumstances you support the death penalty.

Do you affirm, as the Catechism states, that it when it is the “only possible way”, or are you in favour of a wider interpretation? Do you think we should pursue the death penalty as a matter of course in justice system, or do you think it should be the rare exception, even in 1st Degree murder cases?

The Catechism says the cases for the death penalty “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” Do you agree with this statement? Or do you think your interpretation is more important?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How about Cardinal Ratzinger in his document:

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion
General Principles
by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

Also you are incorrect in your assessment about Scripture.

Jesus said in the Gospel of Matthew 5:17:

That is not support of the death penalty.

 

[livingwordunity]

Maybe it is better to outlaw capital punishment since it could eventually be used to silence orthodox Christians for alleged “hate speech”.

 

[JMJSHJ]

That is not support of the death penalty.

Perhaps you better re-read it. It shows that Catholics can have different opinions on the death penalty without sanctimonious posters telling them otherwise.

If you are sincere about partisanship, then you should respect that Catholics can have different opinions about the death penalty without being made to feel less of a Catholic.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Perhaps you better re-read it. It shows that Catholics can have different opinions on the death penalty without sanctimonious posters telling them otherwise.

If you are sincere about partisanship, then you should respect that Catholics can have different opinions about the death penalty without being made to feel less of a Catholic.

It is not support of the death penalty. Are the Popes calls for abolishing the death penalty ‘sanctimonious?’ If not, then one has to question why that description only applies to one who agrees with the Popes.

I don’t think we’re supposed to spill another thread over to a different topic. Either way, I won’t be continuing that discussion.

 

[JMJSHJ]

It is not support of the death penalty.

I don’t think we’re supposed to spill another thread over to a different topic. Either way, I won’t be continuing that discussion.

It is saying that Catholic can in good conscience disagree with the Pope about the death penalty.

While the link is about abortion which I know makes you uncomfortable to talk about but the section that I highlighted clearly is totally relevant to this thread.

Will you agree with what is said and show some respect for those who are in favor of the death penalty in certain situations?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is saying that Catholic can in good conscience disagree with the Pope about the death penalty.

While the link is about abortion which I know makes you uncomfortable to talk about but the section that I highlighted clearly is totally relevant to this thread.

Will you agree with what is said and show some respect for those who are in favor of the death penalty in certain situations?

I am not uncomfortable with talking about abortion. That is no more than an ad hominem remark, in my honest opinion. I am pro life on all fronts, from conception until natural death. Your insinuation is false, and off topic.

 

[JMJSHJ]

It is not support of the death penalty. Are the Popes calls for abolishing the death penalty ‘sanctimonious?’ If not, then one has to question why that description only applies to one who agrees with the Popes.

I don’t think we’re supposed to spill another thread over to a different topic. Either way, I won’t be continuing that discussion.

I am not uncomfortable with talking about abortion. That is no more than an ad hominem remark, in my honest opinion. I am pro life on all fronts, from conception until natural death. Your insinuation is false.

I said uncomfortable not heretical.

Also why did you modify your previous to include the bolded part after I posted in reply to it?

To answer your question, no the Pope’s aren’t sanctimonious because to my knowledge they aren’t saying that others can’t hold opinions in contrast to that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I said uncomfortable not heretical.

Also why did you modify your previous to include the bolded part after I posted in reply to it?

To answer your question, no the Pope’s aren’t sanctimonious because to my knowledge they aren’t saying that others can’t hold opinions in contrast to that.

I am not uncomfortable, nor heretical. If that what this discussion has sunk to, I will have no part of it.

I edited the post while you were posting, evidently.

I have said I agree with the Popes, and provided the exact terminology as is in the Catechism. I’m sorry if ‘very rare, if not practically and nonexistent’ conflicts with support for the death penalty.

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

 

[BroomWagon]

“I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.” – Mother Teresa

“And if we can accept that a mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?” – Mother Teresa

“Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion” – Mother Teresa

“Any country that accepts abortion is the poorest of the poor” – Mother Teresa

“Many people are concerned with children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is the greatest destroyer of peace today- abortion which brings people to such blindness.” – Mother Teresa

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish” – Mother Teresa

• See more at: fallibleblogma.com/index.php/quote-of-the-day-mother-teresa-on-abortion/#sthash.xAlqwGoM.dpuf

I am not uncomfortable with talking about abortion. That is no more than an ad hominem remark, in my honest opinion. I am pro life on all fronts, from conception until natural death. Your insinuation is false, and off topic.

I guess that’s why an Obama supporter/ pro-choicer runs this citation by you in his/her signature:

If we can’t force people to help the poor through taxation, how can we force people to be pro life…etc. through legislation? (ProdigalSon1)

Mother Teresa it isn’t.

Lo and behold, when a cause it more leftist, guess who comes along!

And this is a person who accuses Mitt Romney of political expediency and Lying!! You may not say lying but that essentially is what you say.

If you can make a quote like that and turn around and say you are pro-life, you certainly never had any right to question the character of Mitt Romney. And questioning character is a mild way to say it.

It would be funny if it were not such an indignifying act to not only Mitt Romney but probably to a number of other people who would count themselves as pro-life.

I’m sure you regularly read pro-life websites and pray in front of abortion mills.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I guess that’s why an Obama supporter/ pro-choicer runs this citation of you:

Mother Teresa it isn’t.

Lo and behold, when a cause it more leftist, guess who comes along!

And this is a person who accuses Mitt Romney of political expediency and Lying!! You may not say lying but that essentially is what you say.

If you can make a quote like that and turn around and say you are pro-life, you certainly never had any right to question the character of Mitt Romney. And questioning character is a mild way to say it.

That was made in a discussion where people were saying we could not legislate helping the poor. If we can’t legislate that, then how can we legislate anything. Anyways, I have told you that you are using it out of context for your insinuations against me. Your continued following me from thread to thread with the same false accusations, and insinuations is a false witness against me, and the reason I stopped responding to you.

 

[BroomWagon]

It is saying that Catholic can in good conscience disagree with the Pope about the death penalty.

While the link is about abortion which I know makes you uncomfortable to talk about but the section that I highlighted clearly is totally relevant to this thread.

Will you agree with what is said and show some respect for those who are in favor of the death penalty in certain situations?

I question someone can be honestly “pro-life” saying this:

If we can’t force people to help the poor through taxation, how can we force people to be pro life…etc. through legislation? (ProdigalSon1)

In the signature of an Obama supporter, pro-choice exponent if I have this correctly.

Unless they are saying something in a relative way.

I don’t even think the poster has a grasp of what planned parenthood is or a lot of issues at stake.

Undoubtedly, on a relative scale, I’m sure this can be rationalized by the poster as being Christian and following the Church!

If one isn’t aware of the issues, they can assert we should convince people in a Christian way that abortion is wrong, meanwhile, the Government gives America’s biggest Abortion provider $1,000,000 a day! (reference Liveaction.org)

Thanks a lot!

This relates to the thread in that abortion is a death penalty of the innocent.

 

[larsont7]

Some snippets of an article from Crisis magazine about the death penalty: crisismagazine.com/2011/can-the-church-ban-capital-punishment

I highly recommend reading the entire article, but here are just a few samples.

According to the constant teaching of the Church, God Himself has ordained that legitimate civil authority shall have the right and duty to punish deliberate murder (and other grave crimes) with the penalty of death. Capital punishment honors the Fifth commandment, because it vindicates the sanctity of human life. Hence, in its teaching on the Fifth Commandment the Catechism of the Council of Trent declares:

‘Again, this prohibition does not apply to the civil magistrate, to whom is entrusted the power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which he punishes the guilty and protects the innocent. The use of the civil sword, when wielded by the hand of justice, 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 sanctity of human life, and to the attainment of this end, the punishments inflicted by the civil magistrate, who is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend, giving security to life by repressing outrage and violence.’

The Catechism’s reference to the civil sword evokes St. Paul’s teaching on the divine right of civil authority to avenge wrongdoing by the sword: “But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Rom. 13:4 Reflecting on this passage, St. Thomas teaches that capital punishment imitates divine justice; for after all, eternal damnation is the ultimate form of capital punishment: “According to the order of His wisdom God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas he sometimes allows them time to repent, according as what is expedient to His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers . . .” (ST II-II, Q. 64, Art. 2)

It must not be forgotten that the death penalty, like any criminal penalty, serves as a form of expiation. That is why prisons were once called penitentiaries. As Saint Thomas observes in the Summa: “Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment for those crimes in the next life, or at least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation, and contrition; but a natural death does not.” (Cf. Romano Amerio Iota Unum, 435). Further, in the case of capital punishment the expiatory penalty reflects the sin of one whose grave crime has caused him to lose the right to life. Some 700 years after the Summa, Pope Pius XII repeated the constant teaching of the Church in this regard: “Even when it is a question of someone condemned to death, the state does not dispose of an individual’s right to life. It is then the task of public authority to deprive the condemned man of the good of life, in expiation of his fault, after he has already deprived himself of the right to life by his crime.” (AAS, 1952, pp. 779 et. seq)

The expiatory nature of the death penalty may be its most important aspect. Sacred Scripture itself provides the example of the good thief on the cross (Lk. 23-39-42), whose very recognition that “we receive the due reward of our deeds” is a sign of the working of God’s grace in a soul being moved to faith in Christ. The good thief’s expiation, through his acceptance of the condign penalty of death, is so complete as to merit his immediate entry into paradise. Indeed, the common experience of mankind is that nothing is more likely to provoke repentance in hardened sinners than imminent execution. The historic accounts of death row conversions could be set forth endlessly. Even the proudly defiant Timothy McVeigh apparently converted. McVeigh, “a self-described agnostic, received the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick by an unidentified prison chaplain.” (CNN, June 11, 2001). We do not know if McVeigh was saved, but who can say that convicted killers languishing in prisons which are sinkholes of immorality are more likely than a condemned man to receive the grace of final penitence?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Some snippets of an article from Crisis magazine about the death penalty: crisismagazine.com/2011/can-the-church-ban-capital-punishment

I highly recommend reading the entire article, but here are just a few samples.

But what would that say about the Popes, and their ability to interpret scriptures?

 

[JerryZ]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes the above, from Evangelium Vitae.

There is no prohibition in that paragraph clear and simple! That is should be rare I think ALL Catholics agree to that. Totally Abolished? Well until someone makes a faith declaration with as much unambiguity as the one on the ordination of women we can all have our viewpoints validly.
And by the way I still see people obfuscating on THAT issue notwistanding the declaration of JPII on the ordination of women.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let’s be clear. It’s about taking a life, before natural death, and Pope John Paul gave a precise definition of when it should be used, and when it should not. One can support the death penalty, but it would seem to be wrong to support it beyond the definition as explained in the Catechism. If we are allowed to disagree with any part of the Catechism, we step onto a slippery slope.

We work to convince the world we are a people of life, yet some argue for the right to take a life, through the state. It seems a people of life should show we are a people of life in all instances, from conception until natural death. For me, I cannot reconcile the death penalty with the teachings of the Church, as explicitly stated in the Catechism. What some are supporting on this thread clearly goes beyond that statement.

 

[curlycool89]

There is no prohibition in that paragraph clear and simple! That is should be rare I think ALL Catholics agree to that.

If they should be rare and “exceptional”, then why won’t the people here admit that most US laws are not in conformity with this Catholic principle then?

If it’s suppose to be rare, then it cannot be a normally proscribed action, but one taken in only exceptional circumstances. It cannot be something that prosecutors regularly can use as a bargaining chip in plea negotiations. You cannot say that everyone convicted of 1st Degree murder should have the possibility of the death penalty because then it is by rule and not by exception.

By the strict reading of the CCC, it should not be a form of punishment that can be applied in every case of X, Y, and Z. Yet, according to the way the law is in the US, there’s no reason why every person convicted of X, Y, and Z can’t be punished with the death penalty, which seems to go against the teaching of the Church.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

From Evangelium Vitae:

1. … Moreover, "legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state."44 Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.45
2. This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offense."46 Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behavior and be rehabilitated.47

It is clear that for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: In other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare if not practically nonexistent.

In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person."48

Source:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[larsont7]

But what would that say about the Popes, and their ability to interpret scriptures?

I’m not sure I’m following you here. What about the popes and their ability to interpret the Scriptures? No pope has outright condemned the death penalty. It’s true that the recent popes have urged against its use in most cases, but they have not condemned it as being in opposition to Church teaching. I think what most people on here are saying (as well as the Catechism and our previous popes) is that the death penalty is not an intrinsic evil, and a faithful Catholic **may support or oppose **its use.

Whether the death penalty should be applied in first world countries like the USA is up for debate, and even I am not convinced one way or the other regarding its use here. But one should not criticize someone who supports or opposes the death penalty based on the false assumption that the Church teaches it is wrong in all cases, which it clearly does not.