Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
40.png
Wesrock:
The revised language could easily be taken as directly stating the DP has everywhere and always be inadmissible and intrinsically evil. Hence the concerns.
Click to expand...
How are you reading it as “always been” when the wording of the second section begins “Today, in fact, given the means at the Staate’s disposal…” It’s pretty clear that the change is because States now have better mechanisms at their disposal to keep people in prison for life than they used to have.
Click to expand...
I quoted it here: Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible' - #7 by Wesrock

Your quotation is not what’s in the revision. The statement makes reference to changing society, but it’s not apparently central or required for the argument being made. It says that today our awareness of the dignity of a person has changed, that the dignity isn’t lost (was that ever claimed as part of the justification?), and that the DP is an attack on the inviolable dignity of the person and is therefore inadmissible.

Again, societal advances were mentioned, but apparently play little role in the argument that people have dignity and the DP attacks that inviolable dignity.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, so how can the typical Catholic tell the difference between prudential judgment and doctrine?

I’m not against prudential judgments in a Catechism per se, but it would be irresponsible to treat such teachings as doctrines. Many of us might laugh at the idea that Catholics thought that Church teaching changed when Masses started to be done in the vernacular, or that we can now eat meat on non-Lent fridays because we know these are policies reflecting a prudential judgment of the Church, but you hear this kind of argument all the time as evidence that the Church’s “dogmas” change. People often can’t tell the difference unless they go into the relatively obscure corners of the internet called “apologetics”.
 
If someone can spend a life in solitary confinement, why kill him, where is justice in that? ITs showing that the murderer was right in murdering, by doing the same thIng to him that he did to another when other options are available.
 
Last edited:
No because killing a guilty man is not murder, that has never been the churches position. One is a sin and the other isnt
 
Presumably they get justice by having the murderer imprisoned.

Jesus himself did not support the idea of “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth”, life for a life, that had characterized Jewish justice up to that point. Jesus wanted us to forgive. The appropriate Christian response for the victim’s family would be to forgive, not seek to have someone killed in revenge.

The main reason for executing murderers in the past, from the Church’s POV, was not “justice for victims” but that it was sometimes impossible to properly protect society from them over the long term. Your average little town in olden times didn’t have a Supermax facility where a murderer could be safely locked up for the rest of his life. It had some jail that the guy could break out of and go kill more people. So execution from a practical standpoint made some sense. Today it makes much less sense and frankly as applied in the USA the death penalty law is costly, unworkable and unreliable, even without the Church pronouncement or any moral pronouncement at all.
 
Your right but It’s still a violent action that in most instances can be avoided and gives the perpetrator a chance to repent.
 
It flies in the face of traditional pre Vatican 2 teaching, it also flies in the face of Jesus own words when he said it would be better that a millstone be tied around the neck of those who harm children and thrown into the sea.
 
Capital punishment isn’t murder. It isn’t doing the same thing to someone. I mean we don’t not imprison kidnappers because that is what they did to their victims. We don’t not make a thief repay his victim because taking money from him would be thievery.
 
Jesus said it would be better for a millstone to be tied around the neck of those who harm children and thrown into the sea
 
Somewhat, but not entirely. Look up the Early Church’s positions on Christians serving in the government. Many held that even though the state might legitimately hold the power of execution, Christian officials were forbidden from being executioners. Historically speaking, the Church’s position has been more complicated than a simple theoretical endorsement of the DP. The Christian faith is centered around mercy and forgiveness, and early Christians sought to go beyond the expectations of earthly justice. We cannot ignore this side of the equation.
 
Last edited:
Personal vengence is wrong, but there is a difference between personal vengeance and state justice. The state is the minister of God, its primary Job is to punish evil doers.

Romans 13 1-4
let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Click to expand...
 
So you are arguing revenge is a just reason to execute a prisoner? That wasn’t Catholic teaching before.

NO ONE is saying that a murderer is right to do what he does.
 
Lilac said:
it also flies in the face of Jesus own words when he said it would be better that a millstone be tied around the neck of those who harm children and thrown into the sea.
Click to expand...
Jesus was making a comparison between that fate and the Father’s wrath. He was not stating that people who harm children should actually have millstones tied around their necks and thrown into the sea.
 
Last edited:
exnihilo said:
Such as? They may be there but I’m not aware of them.
Click to expand...
Pretty much all the passages that use the smaller size font (as per CCC 20).

But even before the change, this would describe CCC 2267. It included the quote from JP II that the conditions where recourse to the death penalty were “very rare, if not practically nonexistent.” Francis basically just changed it to say, “Well, we checked, and I can now say that the conditions are nonexistent in today’s world.”
 
Big deal is that it reverses pre Vatican 2 teaching on the issue. This is never supposed to happen. It’s one thing for an issue to evolve, but it is entirely different when it reverses a Doctrine completely. I might also add that Jesus himself said that it would be better that a millstone be tied around the neck of those who harm children and cast into the sea.
 
The 1997 revisions to the Catechism said it was only licit “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.”

This really doesn’t seem like a big change from that.
 
Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
Click to expand...
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top