Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[JaneGrey]

I’m not aware that any unfaithful Catholics are involved in this discussion.

As for myself, I follow the Church’s teachings on life whether it’s euthanasia, abortion or the death penalty. I don’t cherry pick. They all flow from the same pro-life principle.

Now, are cherry-picking Catholics-- the ones who oppose abortion but support the death penalty, or vice versa- are they unfaithful? I can’t say, that’s for God to judge.

Very well said.

 

[stanczyk]

Appears it is time to post this again:

*Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. **There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

---

***Pope Benedict XVI

---

While I have no dispute with the wisdom contained in this quotation, I should point out that it is improper to attribute it to Pope Benedict, as it was written by our holy father when he was then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Just FYI.

Otherwise, great quote:thumbsup:

 

[stanczyk]

Very well said.

Thanks Jane

 

[stanczyk]

Yes, I know the ‘Just War’ argument. Sadly, everybody who fights considers their war a just war.

This is where you are mistaken. Whether or not a war is “just” is, in fact, based on objective criteria. This can be found in CCC 2309

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• there must be serious prospects of success;

• the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

I understand that “everybody thinks their war is just.” Thankfully, the one true Church has given us objective criteria by which we can ascertain whether or not those claims are true.

 

[Roy5]

The ‘Just War’ doctrine sounds great, but when it comes to application it doesn’t seem to work. Different sides would respend differently when the criteria are considered.

World War II, for example, ran counter several of these criteria, yet both sides thought they were right, the Pope did not take sides, so the doctrine was theoretical only.

 A couple of examples from World War II. The Armenians and the Finns, among various others, fought as allies of the Nazis.Ukrainians welcomed the inavding Nazis.  Sounds bad, of course, but the Armenians wanted their legitimate freedom from the Soviet Union - and the Finns had been attacked by the Soviets in 1939. The Ukrainians wanted their freedom, too. Even in the Pacific, Thailand allied itself with Japan (and Gandhi was put in jail)?. Why? The French, British, Dutch and US controlled much of southeast Asia (India, Burma, Vietnam, Indonesia, Phillippines, etc.) and the Siamese and others wanted them out - Asia for the Asians (the Japanese slogan). Gandhi was jailed because he also wanted India free.
 
 How did the Iraq War (II) rank? And in Afghanistan? And Vietnam? And Korea? We could go on and on. Even back to World War I and dozens of other major conflicts, many between Christian and even Catholic nations.

 If the doctrine worked, it would be terrific. But obviously it hasn't.

 

[stanczyk]

If the doctrine worked, it would be terrific. But obviously it hasn’t.

You misunderstand again. The purpose of just war theory is to determine whether or not a war is just, not to control human behavior. In this respect the doctrine “works” just fine.

The Holy Church can only show the way of what is good and just, if humanity doesn’t choose to follow, that is just the way it is.

But the point is that war is not always against the will of God. Provided a war meets the criteria contained within the Catechism, it is morally permissible.

 

[pnewton]

• **There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

---

***Pope Benedict XVI

---

This is why the accusation that folks like me are, “in flagrant contradiction of our Holy Father”, is itself a contradiction of what the Holy Father has said. We can disagree with the Holy Father on matters of science or math. We can even disagree with the Holy Father on matters of specific application of moral law and be just as faithful as those who agree on a specific application. I do think one should be very careful in this later tough, unless one is an expert in the field. I also think one should always struggle to understand the mind of the Church, even in disagreement.

 

[pnewton]

Great point! We must exhaust every possibility before resorting to the death penalty (and there are plenty of possibilities) not looking for ways to excuse the death penalty.

The is simply no dangerous criminal in modern society who cannot be effectively neutralized with thorough incarceration rather than death.

Here is a post from a similar thread that shows the difficulty faced:

I call death row torture but not prison. In normal prison a person can have contact visits with their family and is out of their cell most of the day working and doing things. On death row a person is in solitary confinement almost the whole day. Most death rows do not even let the inmates out of their cells together. Add to this the mental torture of knowing that at the end of this hell, you are going to be killed and you might begin to see what I mean.

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=8670989

The only way to keep some people from continuing a life of crime and murder even from within prison is to keep them 100% cut-off. We have watered down the definition of cruel punishment to the point that any prison that was set up to keep society safe as a priority would be deemed cruel and labeled as torture.

If I would ever agree that we can safely incarcerate the most dangerous criminals for life, if would have to be in conditions that most Americans are unwilling to accept.

 

[stanczyk]

Anybody who works to preserve the death penalty is acting in flagrant contradiction of our holy father:

“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.”
Pope Benedict XVI, Nov. 30, 2011

 

[rlg94086]

Anybody who works to preserve the death penalty is acting in flagrant contradiction of our holy father:

Based on what our Holy Father said when he was a Cardinal, it is okay for Catholics to be in flagrant contradiction with him on the death penalty.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Anybody who works to preserve the death penalty is acting in flagrant contradiction of our holy father:

Excuse me if I’m wrong but he said he hopes others join him. He doesn’t say they must, as in it sounds like he is only making his opinion available for others to join him, not that they must. Therefore it’s not quite a contradiction, it would seem to me at least.

 

[rlg94086]

Excuse me if I’m wrong but he said he hopes others join him. He doesn’t say they must, as in it sounds like he is only making his opinion available for others to join him, not that they must. Therefore it’s not quite a contradiction, it would seem to me at least.

 

[stanczyk]

Excuse me if I’m wrong but he said he hopes others join him. He doesn’t say they must, as in it sounds like he is only making his opinion available for others to join him, not that they must. Therefore it’s not quite a contradiction, it would seem to me at least.

The holy father is urging us to work to eliminate the death penalty. Logically, it is contrary to the holy father’s urging if one works to preserve the death penalty.

 

[rlg94086]

The holy father is urging us to work to eliminate the death penalty. Logically, it is contrary to the holy father’s urging if one works to preserve the death penalty.

The Holy Father has urged everyone to memorize the common prayers in Latin, but the vast majority of American Catholics flagrantly contradict him by saying Latin is dead and only the vernacular should be used.

They’ll probably go to hell for it…

 

[bbarrick8383]

The holy father is urging us to work to eliminate the death penalty. Logically, it is contrary to the holy father’s urging if one works to preserve the death penalty.

Yes, but it’s still his opinion. If he felt that it should be official doctrine for faithful Catholics to oppose the death penalty, does he not have the power to make it so? At that point I’m sure man of the folks here who do not oppose the death penalty would do so.

 

[stanczyk]

Yes, but it’s still his opinion. If he felt that it should be official doctrine for faithful Catholics to oppose the death penalty, does he not have the power to make it so? At that point I’m sure man of the folks here who do not oppose the death penalty would do so.

It’s already in the Catechism that Catholics cannot support the death penalty except in the limited instances where it is necessary to defend society. This is really nothing new.

Anybody who supports the death penalty when it is not strictly necessary is doing so in violation of the Catechism. And as we know from John Paul II, the necessity for death penalty is so extremely rare as to be practically nonexistent. So in all but those practically nonexistent cases, support for the death penalty is in violation of Church teaching.

 

[stanczyk]

The Holy Father has urged everyone to memorize the common prayers in Latin, but the vast majority of American Catholics flagrantly contradict him by saying Latin is dead and only the vernacular should be used.

American Catholics would do well to listen to our holy father and do their best to learn Latin. I couldn’t agree more.

Likewise, Catholics who support the death penalty would do well to listen to our holy father and work to abolish capital punishment.

 

[bbarrick8383]

It’s already in the Catechism that Catholics cannot support the death penalty except in the limited instances where it is necessary to defend society. This is really nothing new.

Anybody who supports the death penalty when it is not strictly necessary is doing so in violation of the Catechism.

Does it define those limited instances?

It also prohibits torture does it not? Put me in solitary confinement and I promise you, it would be torture. I’d beg for the death penalty.

There are some extremely creative killers out there who are not safe to keep around in any environment.

I think most of us here agree that the death penalty should be limited in use.

 

[stanczyk]

Does it define those limited instances?

Yes. CCC 2267 reads, in pertinent part: "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 are 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 non-existent.”"

It also prohibits torture does it not? Put me in solitary confinement and I promise you, it would be torture. I’d beg for the death penalty.

Solitary confinement is not considered torture.

CCC 2297 reads, in pertinent part: “Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.”

There are some extremely creative killers out there who are not safe to keep around in any environment.

This is simply false. As a very wise poster observed earlier, there is a degree of danger inherent in all activities. But the degree of danger in modern incarceration can be effectively reduced so as to satisfy the Catechical standard which renders the death penalty impermissible.

I think most of us here agree that the death penalty should be limited in use.

I agree with the holy father that the death penalty should be totally abolished.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Solitary confinement is not considered torture.