Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter TEPO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not comparing, but showing that the definition of murder can be changed depending on legality.
Well, of course. If you intentionally kill an innocent, it’s murder. If its due to gross negligence but not intentional, it’s usually deemed manslaughter. If you kill someone in self-defense, its usually deemed justifiable homicide. If you open fire at a McDonalds, kill several innocent people for no reason; are tried in a court of your peers and sentenced to death by lethal injection; it’s called justice.

Now, how do you draw an equivalence between abortion and capital punishment? Just because our laws don’t always recognize the unborn as innocent human beings, it isn’t really a basis for comparison.
 
How do you define deterrence?

True, it may not stop someone else from killing, but it is 100 percent effective in keeping that executed person from killing again.

There have been cases where the executed have later been found to be innocent, but it takes real semantic gymnastics to find the unborn anything but innocent, although I’ll admit, I’ve seen it tried. That is the difference between abortion and Capital Punishment.
 
Frm the CCC (emphasis added):

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

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.

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."

IMHO, a rich, developed country like the U.S. should not be using the death penalty, in accordance with this teaching.
And your posts shows, the death penalty may be used in accordance with church teachings.

I don’t understand all the deterrent chatter here as the church does not condone the death penalty be used as a deterrent.🤷
 
How do you define deterrence?

True, it may not stop someone else from killing, but it is 100 percent effective in keeping that executed person from killing again.

There have been cases where the executed have later been found to be innocent, but it **takes real semantic gymnastics to find the unborn anything but innocent, although I’ll admit, I’ve seen it tried. ** That is the difference between abortion and Capital Punishment.
Some argue the unborn is a parasite.
 
I can’t believe you are comparing the taking of an innocent life to the execution of a murderer. 😦
It is true that Abortion and Capital Punishment are qualitatively different matters in the eyes of the Church. The reasoning behind the Church’s opposition to Abortion is different than it’s opposition to Capital Punishment. Abortion can never be condoned, while, theretically Capital Punishment can.

The Church, theoretically, allows for the death penalty and this wont change. What has changed is that the Church, as expressed in the CCC, states that, in practical terms the need for Capital Punishment has been greatly reduced, and may in fact be virtually non-existent.

The Church’s teaching need to be seen in the light of history and the change of centuries. In the middle ages and renaissance the penal system was totally different and technology was not sufficient to definitively protect society, thus Capital Punishment was permissable. Today, in a first world country, where the guilty (and dangerous) party couldn’t be moved to a secure location; I would think that Capital Punishment could be employed.

I see the Church’s views on the Death Penalty to be kind of a “macro-level” system of thought version of the “micro-level” system of morality allowing an individual to defend their family against an aggressor even to the point of emplying deadly means.
 
Some argue the unborn is a parasite.
I’ve read the argument, that, how do we know that the aborted wouldn’t have grown up to be a mass murderer or dictator? Therefore, they may not be innocent.
 
How can execution of unborn babies be murder and the execution of adults convicted of crimes not be murder? In both cases, both are ‘legal’ so if its not whether the killing is legal or not, what’s the difference?
How is abortion not murder, but shooting a pregnant woman and killing the child murder?

I do not support the death penalty by and large, but I do not equate it with abortion, which in every single documented case is wrong.
 
I’ve read the argument, that, how do we know that the aborted wouldn’t have grown up to be a mass murderer or dictator? Therefore, they may not be innocent.
Someone has actually made such an argument? It sounds as if it may be based on the “bad seed” idea or a distorted notion of original sin. Otherwise, it is preposterous, both on a logical and scientific basis, given all the intervening variables across the time period, and with respect to common sense. Not to mention the lack of moral equivalence.
 
Why don’t you all just read what the Holy Father has said and consider? Isn’t that the meaning of the thread?

John
 
I apologize that this is a little off topic but…

Does anyone know Newt Gingrich’s stance on the death penalty?
 
I support the Pope’s desire to see an end to the death penalty.
 
Whenever the secular media report something that the Holy Father says, I always take it with a significant grain of salt.

As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput said last August:

We make a very serious mistake if we rely on media like the New York Times, Newsweek, CNN, or MSNBC for reliable news about religion. These news media simply don’t provide trustworthy information about religious faith—and sometimes they can’t provide it, either because of limited resources or because of their own editorial prejudices. These are secular operations focused on making a profit. They have very little sympathy for the Catholic faith, and quite a lot of aggressive skepticism toward any religious community that claims to preach and teach God’s truth.

So what’s wrong with the AP report cited in the OP?

First, it did not report what the Holy Father actually said. What he actually said was,

I greet the distinguished Delegations from Various Countries taking part in the meetings Promoted by the Community of Sant’Egidio on the theme: No Justice without Life . I express my hope That Encourage your deliberations will the political and legislative INITIATIVES Being Promoted in a growing number of Countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the progress made in substantive penal law conforming to the Human Dignity Both of prisoners and the maintenance of effective public order. Upon all the English-speaking pilgrims present, Including Those from the United States, I invoke God’s blessings of joy and peace!

Why did they not report the last six words of that sentence? Would it have caused the report to exceed the word count for the article?

Curious. I mean, Zenit reported the statement accurately. Vatican Radio reported it accurately. CNA managed to report it accurately, as well. Why not the AP?

Secondly, why could the AP not bother to mention the fact that this statement was made as part of a set of greetings at the end of the primary purpose of the weekly audience: catechesis. If you actually take a look at the text of the audience, you will find that this is one of several greetings being passed out after a teaching on prayer through the whole life of Jesus. He also greeted French, German, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, Croatian, Slovenian, and Italian speaking members of the audience, including appropriate comments for each of the pilgrim groups (including special notice to the Italian bakers: In particular, I greet the representatives of the "Italian Federation of Bakers and Confectioners’ and express their deep gratitude for the welcome gift of panettone for the charity of the Pope greet the volunteers of the “Red Cross of Puglia” and urge them to continue their activities to the brethren in need.)

It’s not news that the Holy Father is opposed to the death penalty. And I’m not trying to make it appear that he does.

But this was not some major pronouncement. The Holy Father did not dedicate his weekly audience to the topic, nor was this a major speech of his. It was just a two sentence greeting that was a very small part of a whole litany of greetings given at the end of his weekly general audience. But you wouldn’t know that based upon the AP report.
 
Why did they not report the last six words of that sentence?
Is the Pope asking that we don’t put the cart before the horse? If we have effective maintenance of public order, we will be able to eliminate the Death Penalty? More secure jails?

That paragraph is worded a bit more clearly at EWTN’s site:
He said: “I express my hope that your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order.”
Let’s compare again to abortion. The answer to abortion, supposedly, is that we need better birth control, and then we won’t need abortions. We need to educate children about sex, starting in Kindergarten. Can’t we educate children how to rob a bank properly? As Minnie Joycelyn Elders said, “safer guns safer bullets”.

Don’t kill the bank teller, and we can eliminate the Death Penalty.
 
Is the Pope asking that we don’t put the cart before the horse? If we have effective maintenance of public order, we will be able to eliminate the Death Penalty? More secure jails?

That paragraph is worded a bit more clearly at EWTN’s site:

Let’s compare again to abortion. The answer to abortion, supposedly, is that we need better birth control, and then we won’t need abortions. We need to educate children about sex, starting in Kindergarten. Can’t we educate children how to rob a bank properly? As Minnie Joycelyn Elders said, “safer guns safer bullets”.

Don’t kill the bank teller, and we can eliminate the Death Penalty.
Apart from as I have demonstrated, the death penalty does NOT work as a deterrent.
 
Its not news all Post Vatican II popes have opposed the death penalty just as most pre-Vatican II popes supported it. I agree with the Angelic Doctor, St Thomas Aquinas on this matter and those who support it, not merely for deterrence but for the sake of justice.
 
How many murders have been committed by prisoners after they have been executed?
How much of a decrease in murders has their been in states with the death penalty?

Actually none. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates.
 
I apologize that this is a little off topic but…

Does anyone know Newt Gingrich’s stance on the death penalty?
I’m sure he approves of the death penalty. No one would stand a chance of being elected President if they were against capital punishment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top