Pope Seeks End to Death Penalty

[iamrefreshed]

Never. To do so means that it is immoral, nothwithstanding time. Since the Popes of years past have spoken in favor, and indeed the Catechism teaches that CP is acceptable (in certain circumstances), then he will never be able to do this.

It was a rhetorical question.

I really can’t stand to see Catholics pick and choose what to believe.

Fact is, I don’t like the death penalty but it is allowed by Catholic teaching. It’s frustrating to see those who claim to be faithful Catholics try to twist opinion and desire of the Pope into Catholic teaching.

 

[Roy5]

** One reason I have difficulty following the Catholicism of my paternal heritage is the position it assigns to the Pope**. Anyone who has read much history knows that there have been brilliant and pious popes, but also popes who gained office through political strings or family connections. Many have be rascals, rogues and even worse. They do not deserve our adulation, let alone our respect.

 **When I was young and busy reading the Church Fathers and other church documents, I came across the "Syllabus of Errors" by Pius IX**, who pushed Vatican I to declare the pope's statements (ex cathedra) as infallible. Have you read the "Syllabus of Errors" (1864 as I recall)? Do you agree with it? Among other things, the Pope sharply condemned the separation of church and state and various other basic principles of democracy.

 **My favorite popes in modern times have been John XXIII and Paul VI**. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been/are brilliant and capable and sincere. However, I fear that they have been loading the hierarchy with arch-conservatives who will keep the Church from even considering reforms that are important. I know that traditionalists applaud them and I admire much about them, but I am concerned about the direction of their leadership.

** So, when the Pope seeks the end of the death penalty we certainly should give his opinion special attention. **And he obviously means well and reforms may be important. But I have my doubts as to no death penalty regardless. Serial killers for one thing. But what about the Nuremberg trials when certain Nazi butchers were found guilty and executed? Think of all the innocent people they had wantonly murdered, many only because they were Jews or Polish priests.
** By the way, that great doctor and theologian of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, called for the execution of heretics**. Not by the Church. The Church should turn them over to the state which then should kill them. What do you think of that?

 

[stanczyk]

Which is far different than the Church requiring Catholics to support the death penalty.

I thank Christ that that isn’t the case. I can’t imagine something so backward.

 

[stanczyk]

That it is torture seems more like an argument for changing the practice than killing the person. I would say that perhaps a lesser evil need not be chosen if an alternative to either is viable. The argument might be made that is supposedly far too expensive to keep a capital offender alive in reasonable conditions; in which case, it seems to be an issue of how much society is willing to pay to keep someone alive.

Great point. I would say that, even granting that solitary confinement is torture (it isn’t, but hypothetically speaking…), it is still preferable given the choice between “torture” and murder.

But the fact of the matter is that solitary confinement of a dangerous prisoner isn’t torture, even if it is unpleasant for the prisoner. The mercykilling argument for capital punishment is utterly bankrupt.

 

[stanczyk]

I just can not imagine being forced to live a life of solitary confinement. It just seams even more inhumane, and I’m sure it is for some criminals. Some of them probably deserve it, but the point of punishment is not to seek vengeance is it…

The Church is absolutely right when it comes to euthanasia. I can not wrap my head around it’s thinking on capital punishment in the cases where it would be better off than being confined.

For anyone who doesn’t think solitary confinement is torture, how long would you last and maintain mental stability?

Mr. Barrick, I see what you’re saying, and you’ve admitted before IIRC that you have problems with the Catechism and the holy father on this issue. So we are coming at it from different, perhaps irreconcilable perspectives.

That being said, you say “the Church is absolutely right when it comes to euthanasia.” I agree! This is a start, right?

But where we diverge is that you essentially want euthanasia for solitary confinement prisoners. This is something I cannot wrap my head around, to borrow your phrase.

Solitary confinement is a thing of necessitity, to contain a violent prisoner. It is always preferable to killing. When the alternative to killing is available, the killing is murder. This is what the Church teaches. I understand you disagree with the Church, but I still do not understand how you can oppose euthanasia for the sick but support euthanasia for prisoners?

 

[stanczyk]

It was a rhetorical question.

I really can’t stand to see Catholics pick and choose what to believe.

Fact is, I don’t like the death penalty but it is allowed by Catholic teaching. It’s frustrating to see those who claim to be faithful Catholics try to twist opinion and desire of the Pope into Catholic teaching.

The only people I see trying to twist Catholic teaching are those who seek to justify the death penalty when alternative means are available to protect society, which the case whenever the death penalty is used today.

So, anybody who advocates the death penalty is in contradiction of the holy father, and advocating for murder. It’s not any different than those who oppose the Church on abortion.

 

[rlg94086]

The only people I see trying to twist Catholic teaching are those who seek to justify the death penalty when alternative means are available to protect society, which the case whenever the death penalty is used today.

So, anybody who advocates the death penalty is in contradiction of the holy father, and advocating for murder. It’s not any different than those who oppose the Church on abortion.

Regardless of whether they are in agreement with the Holy Father or not, the death penalty, even when other means are available, is not murder. You are, once again, misusing a term.

 

[Langdell]

I ask this without intending to “heat things up,” and simply with a sincere desire to understand where people are coming from: For those who think the death penalty in the U.S. is not contrary to Church teaching, are you saying that you disagree with CCC 2267, or that you agree with CCC 2267 and your views are a reasonable application of CCC 2267? Or are you saying something else?

 

[stanczyk]

Regardless of whether they are in agreement with the Holy Father or not, the death penalty, even when other means are available, is not murder. You are, once again, misusing a term.

Again, it is very clear to anybody who is being objective that if the death penalty is used outside of the requirements of the Catechism (when it is not necessary to protect society) then it is a murder.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I ask this without intending to “heat things up,” and simply with a sincere desire to understand where people are coming from: For those who think the death penalty in the U.S. is not contrary to Church teaching, are you saying that you disagree with CCC 2267, or that you agree with CCC 2267 and your views are a reasonable application of CCC 2267? Or are you saying something else?

I agree with 2267 and the Pope. I disagree with the posters who insist that the conditions in which the elimination of the death penalty would be possible currently exist.

 

[stanczyk]

I agree with 2267 and the Pope. I disagree with the posters who insist that the conditions in which the elimination of the death penalty would be possible currently exist.

If this second part is true, then you, in fact, disagree with both Benedict and the Blessed John Paul II.

 

[rlg94086]

Again, it is very clear to anybody who is being objective that if the death penalty is used outside of the requirements of the Catechism (when it is not necessary to protect society) then it is a murder.

Nope. I’m being objective, and clearly the death penalty issued for justice by a court of law is not murder. Ever.

 

[stanczyk]

Nope. I’m being objective, and clearly the death penalty issued for justice by a court of law is not murder. Ever.

You’re simply wrong.

 

[rlg94086]

If this second part is true, then** you, in fact, disagree with both Benedict and the Blessed John Paul II**.

Which is okay, per Cardinal Ratzinger…now Pope Benedict XVI.

 

[rlg94086]

You’re simply wrong.

No. I’m not. You are.

We could go back and forth with that several times, if you like…

 

[stanczyk]

Which is okay, per Cardinal Ratzinger…now Pope Benedict XVI.

You are mistaken. According to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, it is ok for well-meaning Catholics to disagree on what constitutes necessary application of the death penalty to protect society (though both the holy father and the Blessed John Paul II have advocated that the necessary death penalty is practically nonexistent). However, there is no room for disagreement that in those circumstances when the death penalty is not necessary for protection of society, its use in murder.

 

[rlg94086]

You are mistaken. According to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, it is ok for well-meaning Catholics to disagree on what constitutes necessary application of the death penalty to protect society (though both the holy father and the Blessed John Paul II have advocated that the necessary death penalty is practically nonexistent). However, there is no room for disagreement that in those circumstances when the death penalty is not necessary for protection of society, its use in murder.

Please provide the quote of him saying that.

 

[stanczyk]

Please provide the quote of him saying that.

Not necessary, this is in the Catechism.

 

[rlg94086]

Not necessary, this is in the Catechism.

Right. So, the Holy Father has said that Catholics can differ on the death penalty, but you’ve taken it upon yourself to speak authoritatively about what the Holy Father meant. You are not the Pope. You can certainly state your opinion, but the Catechism does not say that the death penalty is ever murder.

 

[stanczyk]

Right. So, the Holy Father has said that Catholics can differ on the death penalty, but you’ve taken it upon yourself to speak authoritatively about what the Holy Father meant. You are not the Pope. You can certainly state your opinion, but the Catechism does not say that the death penalty is ever murder.

You are misunderstanding. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger said that Catholics can differ as to what constitutes a necessary application of the death penalty. But no Catholic can disagree with the Catechism that the unneccessary use of the death penalty is murder. This is a requirement of the Catechism, and it is not up for debate. And yet you are arguing that the unnecessary use of the death penalty is not murder, in direct contradiction of the Catechism.