Is that the wording of the Catechism? That the “unneccessary use of the death penalty is murder?” Or, is that your interpretation? I could very well be wrong, so please post the part of the Catechism that clearly states that the unnecessary use of the death penalty is murder.
Good to know the current Holy Father following in the footsteps of JPII in an effort to end the death penalty
I agree! The wisdom, intelligence and compassion of Pope Benedict XVI is an inspiration to us all.Good to know the current Holy Father following in the footsteps of JPII in an effort to end the death penalty
No one is seeking to justify the death penalty when alternate means are available to protect society.
It is an opinion; an opinion I share with the Holy Father and the Blessed John Paul II.You however are attempting to state, without proof, that those conditions never exist. That, my friend, is strictly your opinion.
Well, to be accurate Catholics cannot differ on the death penalty. The CCC allows for the death penalty when conditions merit it.
You’re misunderstanding or misreading me. I said that supporting the death penalty when the conditions of the Catechism are not met is the same as opposing the Church on abortion. That much is simply not in contention.Well, to be accurate Catholics cannot differ on the death penalty. The CCC allows for the death penalty when conditions merit it.
It’s not any different than those who oppose the Church on abortion.
No one is arguing in favor or against the death penalty. We are just adhering to Church teachings. Are you?
If you truly think “no one is arguing in favor or against the death penalty” then you must not have read this thread.No one is arguing in favor or against the death penalty. We are just adhering to Church teachings. Are you?
God bless.Well, you said…“The fact of the matter is that the death penalty cannot be justified in modern conditions”
I’m having trouble getting my head around this, at least if we confine ourselves to the U.S. The last sentence of 2267 (“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.’”) does not correspond with practice in the U.S., where executions of offenders are not “practically nonexistent.”
And these neighboring states are?
You believe you are mistaken. The Church position on abortion is an infallible teaching (even though it has not been proclaimed infallible). The comments in Catechism section 2267 are prudential opinion and do not rise to the level of doctrine, infallible or ordinary, therefore Catholics have no moral obligation to agree with them.
This is an ironic claim given that for nearly 2000 years lay Catholics, clergy, and popes had an entirely different position on capital punishment than is laid out in 2267. Are you suggesting it is somehow immoral to believe what the Church taught for two millennia?
No, this was my sarcastic answer to another poster, hence the
.It would be permissible when an alternative such as incarceration does not exist. This was the case in Biblical times, for example. But since we now have the means to effectively incarcerate even the most dangerous criminals, recourse to the death penalty is no longer permissible at all.
What does this mean in practical terms?
Well, it’s impossible to give an example of the death penalty being morally permissible in the modern day, because there are other methods available to defend society, therefore the death penalty is always murder in the modern day.