Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible'

Status
Not open for further replies.
LittleFlower said:
So the CCC is updated. Just like the CCC was updated when contraceptives became a thing, it will be updated, it is not a stagnant piece of writing.

What’s so hard to understand about that?
Click to expand...
Is it possible for the CCC to be updated to allow artificial contraception because of overpopulation or to allow women priests because of the newer insights into the leadership roles of women in modern society today?
 
Last edited:
MikeInVA said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
Pope Francis did not declare the DP intrinsically evil nor did he declared that the DP was the worst of all possible sins…
Click to expand...
Actually, he pretty much did. I don’t know where he ranks it on the sin list, but he definitely placed it on the sin list.
Click to expand...
No. You don’t pretty much declare things intrinsically evil, you actually declare things intrinsically evil. He did not do this. There are many things that violate human dignity without being intrinsically evil.
 
Last edited:
Inadmissible seems pretty clear as not ever. Or are we headed down the ambiguity slope.
 
So what does “inadmissable” mean? Sounds like a finite statement to me.
 
mrsdizzyd said:
Doctrine develops overtime. The modern world has advanced to such an extent that taking human life is no longer necessary.
Click to expand...
Here is where I have problems.

I deplore the death penalty. It’s overused, executed poorly, and its true meaning has been lost.

In wealthy countries it is easier and easier to hold certain criminals safely. In developing nations it is not. Even in wealthy nations people seem to forget about inmate populations and the safety of guard, doctors, and other people who work closely with inmates. Guards are killed or injured often - it’s just never in the news. My closest and dearest friend is a prison guard. It seems every other week there’s news of a guard who has been injured, and he’s already known one who has been killed, but an inmate. Not to mention the inmates who are stabbed to death by other, dangerous criminals. The state knows darn well they can’t keep them safe without taking these dangerous men and keeping them in a dark box and fed through a hole in the wall. They are just too dangerous, and kept in a dark room and deprived of all human contact seems a fate worse than death, to me.

In my mind, and the mind of my friend, the death penalty is not a penalty at all. It’s not a deterrent, it’s not justice, it’s not revenge, it’s not tradition, or anything else. At the end of the day, it’s a terrible terrible choice that must be made when it is not possible to safely house, rehabilitate, and treat a dangerous criminal. There may come a day, someday, where we can. Maybe a kind of AR imprisonment system where offenders are linked in and unable to hurt anyone, but can interact with others. Who knows. But I do not think we have arrived at that day just yet, and I for one think ALL life deserves defense, especially those unarmed prisoners who are housed with smart, dangerous people who still manage to find ways of severely hurting or killing them and the guards protecting them.

And this doesn’t even touch on underdeveloped countries where any kind of inmate protection is impossible.

tl;dr: I believe the death penalty is still necessary, even in developed nations, but it is overused and the meaning of it has been lost. This step is too far, too soon, but I dearly hope one day it will not be.
 
Last edited:
Well said, and good points. I agree with your whole statement, except that I don’t think we’ll ever get to a day where it won’t be necessary. I’m not trying to be a pessimist, but just realistic.
 
I remember Ted Bundy, who became remarkably candid before his execution, said that if he had a chance, he would absolutely kill again. He didn’t say it in anger; simply as a fact. He massively, massively enjoyed killing.
 
Good questions! And may add, who is to say that in ten or twenty years the world won’t face a catastrophic event wherein first world modern accommodations and known safeties will exist no more, and therefore the death penalty will once again be necessary? As Einstein said, “I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

This letter seems wholly misguided and personally bias. I’m glad it is nothing dogmatically official, as I have just learned. The letter bears the marks of something that resembles personal opinion and circumstantial taste, than the expounding of universal truths and long held beliefs. I know there exist many other intellectual Catholics who will see the folly in the wording and intent of this letter, and we will not stand alone. While I respect the office of the Pope, I also know that the Pope is a man and he does not speak infallibly in all matters and at all times.
 
Haven’t some of the Protestant Churches also changed in their theology?
 
Or it’s just guided by social norms.
 
Last edited:
You are the one comparing apples and oranges it seems. The church by its very nature promotes a culture of light and life and battles darkness and death.
Abortion is killing of innocent babies. The church opts to preserve the dignity of life, so abortion is inadmissible.
The dead penalty has as result the death of a human being in a controlled setting by people who have authority over that person at that given time. The Church opts to preserve the dignity of life, so by default it is reasonable for the Church to be against the death penalty.
I understand it is a quite sensitive topic but I do not understand why you seem to be scandalized by the fact that the church chooses to promote a culture of life instead of a culture of death!
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree, I’m just an optimist and I think things like “Matrix” style prisons could ensure complete safety, while providing the opportunity for rehabilitation. That’s a pretty far-off scenario, though.
 
And I can show you where other countries who have done away with the death penalty with the support of their Catholic bishops who also opposed the death penalty…the final authority lies with the Pope…you either accept it…even if you have reservations…or you reject it…in which case you’re on your own
 
It’s not a simple as that at all. Disagreeing with the Pope on his views on an non-infallible issue does not qualify as dissent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top