Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible'

Status
Not open for further replies.
yankeesouth said:
I think prisoners and prison guards would disagree and certainly people have found ways to escape these effective systems of detention.
Click to expand...
Would they? I’m honestly asking. I see a lot of people express this sentiment, but I haven’t seen concrete examples. Do we regularly see news stories about people escaping prison at all let alone escaping, not getting caught, and then going on a killing spree? I haven’t come across any such stories.
 
A lot has changed since then. Like what? Because the evil in the world now seems to be pretty pronounced to me. When you see grown men rape a 6 month old baby to death, Francis would support that grown man. Jesus however says it would be better that the grown man have a millstone tied around his neck and cast into the deepest sea. I’m going to stay with Jesus
 
Perhaps or perhaps not. To Catholics here who obviously take an interest in the detail,a conclusion will be arrived at. But to non Catholics and many if not most cultural Catholics, and the world media, the catholic church has changed its teaching on the death penalty, and if its done that for this issue, why not on all the other numerous issues which in the opinion of the secular world the catholic church is also lagging behind in.

Whether this turns out to be a substantive change we will see, but what we can definitely say is that it was an unnecessary and damaging one. Unless Pope Francis it claiming omniscience as well as infallibility on faith and morals, I fail to see how he can make such a general and sweeping statement on the political and judicial landscape of every nation on earth and the intimate details of each and every case that will be presented to their courts in the future.

Because that is the only way in which he could make such a change. If, as is claimed this is not a change in the teaching on the moral nature of the death penalty but rather a response to social reality in the world today.
 
Of course it has happened as well as prisoners and prison guards being killed by other prisoners.

The number of times doesn’t matter. The document should be factual as it is going to be challenged.
 
Last edited:
Everyone struggles with being pro-life, the left in the context of sexuality and the right
in the context of pursuing “law and order”.
 
So the church changed her teaching, because up until today capital punishment was permissible in certain circumstances.
 
This is fair, though the quote you cite is heavily dependent on the societal conditions:

“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.”

I will admit I missed that language. Of course, this also applies to things like war or self-defense. You can defend yourself against an unjust aggressor, but if you have the means to do so without killing the man, you should avoid killing.

So the issue then with my argument is more the claim that violating human dignity is in certain respects dependent on the social conditions. Would it still be a violation of human dignity to kill an unjust aggressor when no other means are possible? It seems like it is not, according to the current CCC… In which case, we are back to reason #1. I personally don’t mind if that is the only reason to be in disagreement with Pop Francis’ assessment.
 
How is he/she wrong…you just said the Church changed the teaching.
 
Last edited:
But what about self defense? What about war? What about when Jesus said it would be better that a millstone be tied around the necks of those who harm children and cast into the sea?
 
Feanor2 said:
Yes you are wrong. Being Catholic means accepting Church teaching. The church teaches that capital punishment is wrong.

Maybe the Church isn’t right for you.
Click to expand...
While I do not think this is actually what’s happening, statements like this can’t help but make me think of 1984:
Oceania was at war with Eastasia: Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia. A large part of the political literature of five years was now completely obsolete. Reports and records of all kinds, newspapers, books, pamphlets, films, sound-tracks, photographs–all had to be rectified at lightning speed. Although no directive was ever issued, it was known that the chiefs of the Department intended that within one week no reference to the war with Eurasia, or the alliance with Eastasia, should remain in existence anywhere.
Click to expand...
Let’s please not sound like hypothetical totalitarian propaganda machines.
 
I come from the USA where many of the states either abolished the death penalty or put somebody to death on an extremely infrequent basis, so murderers are essentially sitting in prison for 20 years anyway while dozens of appeals are made. Sometimes they die there before they can be sent to the lethal injection table.

Killing a tiny handful of murderers per year does very little to improve society. It just makes people feel better. Wrongly, because Jesus taught that we need to forgive. Yes, I know it’s hard, but a lot of Catholic church teachings are hard.
 
Last edited:
The undercurrent of vengeance and blood lust exhibited today by many who claim to be Catholic is discouraging.
 
This shouldn’t be a big deal. It’s the consistent teaching from the past few decades. The change in the Catechism wasn’t even a huge change.
 
I accidentally replied to whichwaytogo47 instead of you, but basically I granted you your point.

I think the main thrust behind JPII’s approach, looking more closely at his statements on the death penalty, is that he is starting from a general regard for human dignity, and situating his opposition to the death penalty within the current social context.

"Moreover, “legitimate defence 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
  1. 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 offence”.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 fulfils 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 behaviour 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 non-existent."

I will admit this is a little strange. I dont disagree with this at all, but I have found in common discussion human dignity to be a sort of inherent thing that can’t be violated no matter what the circumstances. But JPII is making the action of capital punishment as a violation of dignity dependent on whether other people can protect themselves from said person in other ways.
 
Last edited:
EricF said:
The undercurrent of vengeance and blood lust exhibited today by many who claim to be Catholic is discouraging.
Click to expand...
I can see why Pope Francis did this, because a lot of times when we come out against abortion, somebody says, “Yeah, you say you’re Pro-Life, but you’re okay with the death penalty!”

Any Catholic who is pro-death penalty really needs to think twice about it. Especially in view of the fact that we have almost certainly executed people who were not guilty.
 
Didn’t you know? The Pope’s authority to teach on matters off faith and morals only extends as far as conservative politics. At least in the US.
 
Lol…must have had itchy fingers waiting for the right moment to make that judgment
 
Its important not to confuse our personal obligations, with those of the state. The states job is to punish evil. Its not my job as an individual. My job is to forgive them personally. But that is not the job of the state. Yes there is a place for clemency and mercy, but without justice clemency and mercy are corruption.

The death penalties biggest benefit is deterrence and it is very effective when done right.

But this is a pointless argument, i feel you would still be against the death penalty regardless of the churches position.
 
You shouldn’t be discouraged, you should rejoice! The Church is better clarifying the practical consequences of the Gospel.

Don’t think of it this as “change” that threatens infallibility. That’s not how it works. You have to consider the Holy Spirit’s continual guidance in every age. In the early church, slavery was tolerated — only later for slavery to be explicitly condemned.

If you think the Church’s infallibility is threatened by this clarification on the death penalty, then I’m afraid you have much to learn about the Church’s history of doctrinal development. All of the church’s dogmas didn’t come fresh and delineated out of the mouths of the Apostles. The full implications of the Gospel and the Deposit of Faith take time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top