Pope repeats Church opposition to death penalty [CWN]

[Tsuwano]

So what is the alternative? Let them live?

Should that guy who shot up the theater in Colorado be allowed to live (upon conviction)?

Or that guy in Arizona who shot the congresswoman and killed so many others?

John Wayne Gacy? Ted Bundy? John Allen Muhammad?

Saddam Hussein? Mommar Ghadafi?

Do you really think these people are/were redeemable?

In a word, yes.

 

[BroomWagon]

Mother Teresa and the Death Penalty - basically an anecdotal tale by a Jesuit

This might be of interest to read for balance, not taking a stance on it, I don’t think it has any great revelation but it is interesting to read nonetheless.

 

[chero23]

This is a tough question to have an answer to. On one hand as Catholics, we are thought that God is the one who gave us life and is the only 1 who can take it away. But when you see so many horrible crimes you don’t feel any pity or compassion for those who committed the sins.

I feel that a lot of innocent have been executed wrongly and the killers have been let go bc of a technicality.

 

[spartan_cop]

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.

Nevertheless the church allows it. Until that changes we can listen to the Holy father. But until world peace is achieved, capital punishment will be needed. Hopefully the need for it diminishes but it is naive to think that it is not necessary.

 

[spartan_cop]

What I don’t understand is the people who are opposed to capital punishment argue that if the state takes the criminal’s life it will also take the opportunity for repentance. I am sorry but if a person doesn’t repent after knowing the date and hour of their death, than living for another 200 years wouldn’t do squat.

 

[JMJSHJ]

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.

I can’t speak for others but I would like to speak of myself. All of the recent Pope’s (JP2, Benedict and now Francis) have said that the DP should be greatly reduced. Reduced does not equal none.

I totally agree. Let’s consider the USA. You can get the DP for many instances. With the advent of DNA evidence, we are now seeing how people who were in jail for murder charges were wrongly convicted and if they were on death row then this is a problem.

To be honest, I don’t have a problem with the DP for certain people. Take for instance the Boston bomber. If he is convicted and gets the DP, I can’t disagree with that. Also Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

 

[pnewton]

The Catechism and now three popes in a row? It sure seems like Peter is speaking, or at least clearing his throat to speak. I know it is just an application of moral law to today’s situation, but that is exactly why the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and not a guidebook. I do not like it, but I will accept this is what the Church wants.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

No Pope has outright condemned the death penalty, but the last three have called for abolishing the death penalty. John Paul qualified it’s use, as described in the Catechism. If a Catholic supports the death penalty, it should be in line with the limitations, as listed in the Catechism. What is being taught when those men call for abolishing the death penalty, and qualifications are placed that state ‘very rare, if not nonexistent?’

 

[Fairwinds]

N… What is being taught when those men call for abolishing the death penalty, and qualifications are placed that state ‘very rare, if not nonexistent?’

and very rare, almost nonexistent examples have been described from real life and you continue to substitute your opinion for Church teaching.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I can’t speak for others but I would like to speak of myself. All of the recent Pope’s (JP2, Benedict and now Francis) have said that the DP should be greatly reduced. Reduced does not equal none.

I totally agree. Let’s consider the USA. You can get the DP for many instances. With the advent of DNA evidence, we are now seeing how people who were in jail for murder charges were wrongly convicted and if they were on death row then this is a problem.

To be honest, I don’t have a problem with the DP for certain people. Take for instance the Boston bomber. If he is convicted and gets the DP, I can’t disagree with that. Also Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein.

The term abolish exceeds ‘greatly reduced.’

Not having a problem with certain people being put to death is outside the teaching in the Catechism, unless it’s obvious they continue to be a threat to people’s lives. The problem with some Islamic extremists is, they continue to be a threat from the grave when they are viewed as a martyr by other extremists. In certain cases it would be very difficult to evaluate their potential danger from within a prison. I am open to being informed, but I don’t know of anyone in Guantanamo causing more death through their direct action. The modernized penal system is effective for the greatest majority of cases, as spoken about by John Paul.

If one supports the death penalty, it seems it would be with the limitations as taught in the Catechism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

and very rare, almost nonexistent examples have been described from real life and you continue to substitute your opinion for Church teaching.

What about ‘very rare, if not nonexistent’ is my opinion and not Church teaching?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Catechism and now three popes in a row? It sure seems like Peter is speaking, or at least clearing his throat to speak. I know it is just an application of moral law to today’s situation, but that is exactly why the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and not a guidebook. I do not like it, but I will accept this is what the Church wants.

It’s hard, at least for me and others, to say the Holy Spirit places a Pope, and deny the repeated call from three Popes in a row as the opinion of ‘men.’ Then there’s the absence of any bishop offering a differing ‘opinion.’

 

[JMJSHJ]

What about ‘very rare, if not nonexistent’ is my opinion and not Church teaching?

The part where you erroneously assume that very rare if not nonexistent means never or abolished or not permitted at all.

The term abolish exceeds ‘greatly reduced.’

Not having a problem with certain people being put to death is outside the teaching in the Catechism, unless it’s obvious they continue to be a threat to people’s lives. The problem with some Islamic extremists is, they continue to be a threat from the grave when they are viewed as a martyr by other extremists. In certain cases it would be very difficult to evaluate their potential danger from within a prison. I am open to being informed, but I don’t know of anyone in Guantanamo causing more death through their direct action. The modernized penal system is effective for the greatest majority of cases, as spoken about by John Paul.

If one supports the death penalty, it seems it would be with the limitations as taught in the Catechism.

You are wrong when you accuse me of being outside the teachings of the Catechism. Very rare doesn’t specify numbers and it doesn’t specify which crimes can qualify or not qualify for the Death penalty.

 

[curlycool89]

You are wrong when you accuse me of being outside the teachings of the Catechism. Very rare doesn’t specify numbers and it doesn’t specify which crimes can qualify or not qualify for the Death penalty.

But very rare does by its very definition signify that such an action should be an exception, and not a rule.

So I will ask again: Do you agree that understanding this definition of “very rare” the current practice of many states to prescribe the death penalty across the board for certain crimes (for example, 1st Degree Murder) is not keeping with the CCC?

I keep asking this question and so far nobody is willing to even touch it. I’m not sure if I should take that as a silent acknowledgement or if people are ignoring it because they can’t refute it.

 

[Fairwinds]

But very rare does by its very definition signify that such an action should be an exception, and not a rule.

So I will ask again: Do you agree that understanding this definition of “very rare” the current practice of many states to prescribe the death penalty across the board for certain crimes (for example, 1st Degree Murder) is not keeping with the CCC?

I keep asking this question and so far nobody is willing to even touch it. I’m not sure if I should take that as a silent acknowledgement or if people are ignoring it because they can’t refute it.

you’re the only one confused on this issue. all of the Catholic DP proponents are in line with the CCC and the rarity of use.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The part where you erroneously assume that very rare if not nonexistent means never or abolished or not permitted at all.

You are wrong when you accuse me of being outside the teachings of the Catechism. Very rare doesn’t specify numbers and it doesn’t specify which crimes can qualify or not qualify for the Death penalty.

Enough semantics, if you require language, directly from a Pope, that specifies ‘abolish,’ I will look it up for you. If I ‘erroneously’ assume, I am in good company, in my honest opinion.

Pope Benedict XVI voiced support Wednesday for political actions around the world aimed at eliminating the death penalty, reflecting his stance as an opponent of capital punishment…

He said he hopes “your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to **eliminate** the death penalty.”

Pope Frances echoes the pleas of Benedict XVI and John Paul II to abolish capital punishment.

MADRID — In a message to participants of the Fifth World Congress Against the Death Penalty held in Madrid, Pope Francis reiterated the Holy See’s support for “the abolition of the death penalty.”

Opposition to the death penalty is part of the Church’s defense of the dignity of human life, he said, and it is “a courageous reaffirmation of the conviction that humanity can successfully confront criminality” without resorting to the suppression of life.

In his message, which was signed by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Holy Father recalled that his predecessors Benedict XVI and John Paul II made similar pleas.

He asked that “capital sentences be commuted to a lesser punishment that allows for time and incentives for the reform of the offender.”

“Today, more than ever, it is urgent that we remember and affirm the need for universal recognition and respect for the inalienable dignity of human life, in its immeasurable value,” Cardinal Bertone wrote on behalf of Pope Francis.

The Holy Father, he added, sent his best wishes to the participants of the congress for a “fruitful development of their work.”

At audience, pope praises groups for efforts to ban death penalty

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Pope Benedict XVI gave a special greeting of encouragement to delegations meeting in Rome – including a group from Illinois – to promote the abolition of the death penalty.

Pope backs initiatives to abolish the death penalty

I can look up more if you like. I just got off a 36 hour shift and have a 48 hour shift starting Monday morning. It will be once I have rested up. If you need it quicker, maybe someone else will provide the language where Popes have said, ‘end,’ ‘ban,’ or ‘abolish.’

I am trying to meet you somewhere in an acceptable medium, but it seems you are determined to make it an argument and put words in my mouth. I have not accused you of anything. I have stated support of the death penalty is acceptable, as long as it is in agreement with the qualifications given in the Catechism.

 

[JMJSHJ]

But very rare does by its very definition signify that such an action should be an exception, and not a rule.

So I will ask again: Do you agree that understanding this definition of “very rare” the current practice of many states to prescribe the death penalty across the board for certain crimes (for example, 1st Degree Murder) is not keeping with the CCC?

I keep asking this question and so far nobody is willing to even touch it. I’m not sure if I should take that as a silent acknowledgement or if people are ignoring it because they can’t refute it.

Yes I agree that very rare would be the exception and not the rule. I wouldn’t have a problem with a of the death penalty ban on typical 1st degree murder cases.

 

[pnewton]

I think I may delay forming much of an opinion of the current state until something a little more definitive is revealed. It seems to me that this story is incomplete.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Enough semantics, if you require language, directly from a Pope, that specifies ‘abolish,’ I will look it up for you. If I ‘erroneously’ assume, I am in good company, in my honest opinion.

It’s not semantics, its what you keep saying. I have read the articles. Until the Vatican or the Pope comes and revises the Catechism regarding this section or this teaching then what is in the Catechism still applies.

I can look up more if you like. I just got off a 36 hour shift and have a 48 hour shift starting Monday morning. It will be once I have rested up. If you need it quicker, maybe someone else will provide the language where Popes have said, ‘end,’ ‘ban,’ or ‘abolish.’

I am trying to meet you somewhere in an acceptable medium, but it seems you are determined to make it an argument and put words in my mouth. I have not accused you of anything. I have stated support of the death penalty is acceptable, as long as it is in agreement with the qualifications given in the Catechism.

You have accused me of not being outside the teachings of the Catechism. When you said the following below DIRECTLY in reply to when I said I don’t have a problem with certain people being put to death. You aren’t in a position to judge what I am saying as following the Catechism.

The term abolish exceeds ‘greatly reduced.’

Not having a problem with certain people being put to death is outside the teaching in the Catechism, unless it’s obvious they continue to be a threat to people’s lives. The problem with some Islamic extremists is, they continue to be a threat from the grave when they are viewed as a martyr by other extremists. In certain cases it would be very difficult to evaluate their potential danger from within a prison. I am open to being informed, but I don’t know of anyone in Guantanamo causing more death through their direct action. The modernized penal system is effective for the greatest majority of cases, as spoken about by John Paul.

If one supports the death penalty, it seems it would be with the limitations as taught in the Catechism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s not semantics, its what you keep saying. I have read the articles. Until the Vatican or the Pope comes and revises the Catechism regarding this section or this teaching then what is in the Catechism still applies.

You have accused me of not being outside the teachings of the Catechism. When you said the following below DIRECTLY in reply to when I said I don’t have a problem with certain people being put to death. You aren’t in a position to judge what I am saying as following the Catechism.

The qualification you provide is not a qualification of the state’s right to the death penalty, in the Catechism. The qualification in the Catechism is when there is no other way to prevent the oppressor from harming a person again. I’m not judging, I’m reading the Catechism.

I have not made it personal, and cannot help it if it strikes a nerve. I am only providing my understanding of what the Catechism says, or doesn’t say as others propose.

As for the Popes, and bishops for that matter, each is Holy Spirit appointed, as all men of the Church in the past were. The men in present times have spoken, and I choose to follow their call, according to my understanding of life, from conception until natural death. What is absent in this discussion, is an opposing statement from any man of the Church, in these current times.

We have statements from men of the Church, that agree with the Popes, who qualify a person’s right to support the death penalty, within the confines of the qualifications listed in the Catechism.