The Death Penalty is a 'mortal sin'

[Thomas_Ruin]

Slavery “is a mortal sin; today we say this. Back then, some would say that this could be done because these people did not have a soul!” he said. The number of people enslaved today is “even more, but at least we know that it is a mortal sin. The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.”

Reflecting on the day’s first reading in which St. Paul recounts God’s works throughout history, Pope Francis said the Lord “guides his people in good times and in bad times, through freedom and slavery.”

cnstopstories.com/2017/05/11/pope-spirit-helps-church-see-mortal-sin-in-slavery-death-penalty/

 

[xNoOnex]

At the very least, I can’t think of a single moral justification for it in the modern era. Prisons are secure and the chance of a dangerous criminal escaping to cause harm to someone is fairly slim.

It also feels as if its a bit more about vengeance than it is justice or for the state to show its dominance over its citizens. Neither of which are commendable.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

“The Death Penalty is a ‘mortal sin’” is not the title of the article, nor does it appear in the article.

 

[twf]

“The Death Penalty is a ‘mortal sin’” is not the title of the article, nor does it appear in the article.

The Pope deliberately and clearly drew a direct analogy between the Church’s evolving position on slavery and the Church’s evolving position on the death penalty. It’s pretty clear he condemns those who administer the death penalty. Any other interpretation of his words would require some pretty remarkable mental gymnastics.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Slavery “is a mortal sin; today we say this. Back then, some would say that this could be done because these people did not have a soul!” he said. The number of people enslaved today is “even more, but at least we know that it is a mortal sin. The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.”

I don’t see the Holy Father offering any condemnation here of the death penalty in general. The translated term is “inadmissible”, assuming it was translated. I don’t see the word condemnable in a list of synonyms for the word inadmissible. Furthermore, I don’t see condemnable and inadmissible as sharing any synonyms.

 

[pnewton]

I would encourage the OP to allow the Holy Father to speak for himself and not to put words in his mouth. Your title, besides being against the rules here, is blatantly in error, being contrary to Catholic teaching.

Here is a quote from the article:

Slavery “is a mortal sin; today we say this. Back then, some would say that this could be done because these people did not have a soul!” he said. The number of people enslaved today is “even more, but at least we know that it is a mortal sin. The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.”

I would like to use this as a lesson in anti-journalism. Do you note that the article does not quote the Holy Father continuously? It glues two quotes together with a statement from the writer that could paraphrase, opinion or something he dreamed for all we know.

Pope Francis defines in his sentence what he refers to when he says, “The same goes for the death penalty.” He did not define it as sin, but as something that was normal and is now inadmissible.

Seriously, we need to learn to read news more carefully, today more than ever, separating fact from opinion in what passes as journalism today. I only criticize CNS as that is the source here. I don’t even mind this type of quoting, if the original source is referenced. However, as far as we know, these two quotes might in separate parts of his homily.

 

[Tim_D]

I don’t see the Holy Father offering any condemnation here of the death penalty in general. The translated term is “inadmissible”, assuming it was translated. I don’t see the word condemnable in a list of synonyms for the word inadmissible. Furthermore, I don’t see condemnable and inadmissible as sharing any synonyms.

“The same goes for the death penalty” is the key statement here.

 

[pnewton]

“The same goes for the death penalty” is the key statement here.

What is the same? The Pope defined this. " …for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.” He did not link it to mortal sin, or even to sin.

 

[Tim_D]

What is the same? The Pope defined this. " …for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.” He did not link it to mortal sin, or even to sin.

"Slavery “is a mortal sin; today we say this….we know that it is a mortal sin. The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.”

 

[ShrodingersCat]

The Catechism states that the Death Penalty may be admissible under certain circumstances. As another poster stated, the death penalty nowadays is more about vengeance than justice and the risks of escaping prison and posing a risk to the public is minimal.

If the conditions for death penalty aren’t met, how is it not unjust taking of life, which by anyone’s definition is grave matter? For whom it is grave matter is another question. But certainly, it’s not much different from murder.

 

[Tim_D]

The Catechism states that the Death Penalty may be admissible under certain circumstances. As another poster stated, the death penalty nowadays is more about vengeance than justice and the risks of escaping prison and posing a risk to the public is minimal.

If the conditions for death penalty aren’t met, how is it not unjust taking of life, which by anyone’s definition is grave matter? For whom it is grave matter is another question. But certainly, it’s not much different from murder.

You need to research what the Church has constantly taught about the death penalty. One of the aspects of capital punishment is retributive justice, the concept that some acts require certain punishments to restore the balance that was upset. In the same way that one who stole must make restitution, a person who unjustly takes the life of another stands to forfeit his own as due punishment. This isn’t novel or new; it has been taught for centuries. It is only lately that a new “insight” has sought to change what has gone before.

 

[esieffe]

I think the Pope meant that it was “indefensible,” which it is in most cases. What I mean by most cases is that if a state’s law are such that a malice murderer who killed for jollies, and is a danger to society can get parole and is at risk of offending again, then the DP could be considered.

That is not the case most of the time I suspect. They be kept behind bars for the rest of their natural life. “Oh but they can escape, or kill guards or other inmates.” Well this happens anyway by those who are not in jail for life, at least at the time. Most of the time, most of the time, escaping a maximum security facility is just plain impossible.

There is also the possibility of conversion. We as Christians and certainly as Catholics have the burden and responsibility of converting sinners, if by no other way than example. Putting someone to death serves no one. Most jurisdictions can.t afford it and it costs an astronomical amount of money to seal the deal.

4% of people sentenced to death are innocent. theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

The internet is full of statistics about people who have been executed, who were later found innocent. Many more people would have been unjustly put to death if it did not take so long to exhaust appeals.

In the end it is just about mercy, and revenge. We are called on to be merciful, but like everyone else including murders, we have free will. We can show no mercy, just like the killers if we want to do that, but we should not be surprised when we stand in judgement and are likewise denied mercy for our own crimes.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

"Slavery “is a mortal sin; today we say this….we know that it is a mortal sin. The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.”

You’re making one sentence out of fragments from two separate sentences. The phrase, “The same goes for the death penalty;…” is referring to the the phrase, “for a time, it was normal.” Here is the whole sentence: “The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal.”

 

[Thomas_Ruin]

From the US Catholic Bishops

The death penalty represents the failure of our modern society to fulfill the theological and moral demands of justice. Justice demands that society begin with the recognition that each human person is created in the image and likeness of God and must work in all its endeavors towards the benefit of the human person. (1) This respect for human dignity is the foundation for the Church’s vision of society and makes it necessary to “consider every neighbor without exception as another self, taking into account first of all their life and the means necessary for living it with dignity.” (2) This understanding of human dignity imposes both theological and ethical norms that define Jesus’ call to discipleship. As a model for living in the world, discipleship calls all to not only follow the teaching of Jesus, but to live in a way that makes the mercy of God known.

The state sanctioned execution of over 1400 people since 1977, as well as the nearly 3,000 people currently on death row, is an affront to our understanding of human dignity. In addition, by the 158 people and counting who have been exonerated due to their innocence since 1973 and the cruel and unusual effects arising from a botched execution demands that we end the death penalty and uphold the dignity of all life. The prolonged nature of the death penalty process can perpetuate the trauma for victims families and prevents the opportunity for healing and reconciliation called for in the message of Jesus Christ.

This challenge to extend radical mercy towards those on death row is evident in Jesus’s exhortation: “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her,” (Jn 8:7). Within this encounter, the full demands of discipleship become clear. Righteousness is not achieved through upholding the law, but through our acts of mercy. True discipleship comes from our actions that lead the other to conversion and that allow our hearts to be open to God’s grace: “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again,” (John 8:11). It is clear that mercy, particularly towards those in need of forgiveness, is not just an act of kindness but is at the heart of the gospel message.

The use of the death penalty denies our call to true discipleship. The teaching of the Church on this matter must be upheld: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” (3) The death penalty does not align with this understanding of human dignity and needs to be abolished in the United States.

(1) Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of The Church. 6th ed. Washington, DC: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Publishing, sec 132.

(2) Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes. Vatican Website, December 7, 1965, sec 27.

(3) Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., sec 2267.

catholicsmobilizing.org/action/pledge/background

 

[Tim_D]

You’re making one sentence out of fragments from two separate sentences. The phrase, “The same goes for the death penalty;…” is referring to the the phrase, “for a time, it was normal.” Here is the whole sentence: “The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal.”

This is the sentence: “The number of people enslaved today is “even more, but at least we know that it is a mortal sin. The same goes for the death penalty;”

The “same goes for the death penalty” is drawn as a comparison to the “people enslaved today; we know that it is a mortal sin.”

The intention is to compare the “mortal” sin of the death penalty to the mortal sin of slavery.

 

[Peebo]

Just recently in Arkansas they executed a number of condemned because the barbiturates they use to kill them had an expiry date and the company that supplied the drugs either wasn’t going to produce any more (or wouldn’t allow them to be use in death penalty cases)…so the state set about killing the condemned as quickly as they could…I have to admit I have reservations in some extreme cases like terrorism.or particularly sadistic killing where the perpetrator shows complete lack of remorse…but what happened in Arkansas was just vengeance killing as I see it

 

[Don_Ruggero]

ROME - Faith is a journey guided by the Holy Spirit, who helps the church grow in understanding the sinful nature of once-accepted practices like slavery and the death penalty, Pope Francis said.

While people once even used religious reasons to justify practices such as slavery, the death penalty and “wars of religion,” over time the Holy Spirit has deepened the church’s understanding of the Gospel, the pope said May 11 in his homily during morning Mass at Domus Sanctae Marthae.

Slavery “is a mortal sin; today we say this. Back then, some would say that this could be done because these people did not have a soul!” he said. The number of people enslaved today is “even more, but at least we know that it is a mortal sin. The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.” /…/

cruxnow.com/vatican/2017/05/11/pope-francis-death-penalty-inadmissible/

 

[Don_Ruggero]

The Catechism states that the Death Penalty may be admissible under certain circumstances. As another poster stated, the death penalty nowadays is more about vengeance than justice and the risks of escaping prison and posing a risk to the public is minimal.

If the conditions for death penalty aren’t met, how is it not unjust taking of life, which by anyone’s definition is grave matter? For whom it is grave matter is another question. But certainly, it’s not much different from murder.

What the Catechism says:
*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.*
All that remains is actually for the Magisterium to delineate what is precisely meant by “very rare” and “practically non-existent.” Given the extreme limitations, how precisely is the state to apply the death penalty to a person in such a way as to not be acting immorally.

This matter has been under assessment by theologians and the Magisterium will certainly act, given the evolution in thought by the successors to the apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which of course is precisely the divine gift accorded to the College of Bishops.

In the 22 years since the promulgation of Evangelium Vitae, it has been gratifying, as a member of the theological community, to see where the minds of the College of Bishops collectively have moved to on this issue.

 

[pnewton]

"Slavery “is a mortal sin; today we say this….we know that it is a mortal sin. The same goes for the death penalty; for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.”

I am not going to accuse the Holy Father of heresy. Your interpretation therefore is wrong. Let me see if I can explain why it must be. What do you mean by mortal sin? In the case of slavery, it is a mortal sin by its nature. The treatment of humans as animals is grave matter. This simply cannot be this “the same” that the Holy Father is saying because the consistent teaching of the Holy Father is that the death penalty is not grave matter. If it were, then God would be gravely sinful, as He authorized the death penalty in the Old Testament.

So is God a grave sinner, or is this phrase “the same” referencing something other than the death penalty being a mortal sin. As he sets up the phrase in apposition to it, "…for a time, it was normal. Today, we say that the death penalty is inadmissible.”

You seem intent on tying this phrase "the same"backwards to the grave nature of slavery. Again, this makes God something less than God. I refuse to consider the Holy Father heretical based on some agenda twisting of his words.

The silly thing is that it is unnecessary. There is no reason to try and stretch the death penalty to be a mortal sin when the Holy Father said it was inadmissible. That alone should be enough for Catholics without exaggeration.

 

[mikekle]

At the very least, I can’t think of a single moral justification for it in the modern era. Prisons are secure and the chance of a dangerous criminal escaping to cause harm to someone is fairly slim.

It also feels as if its a bit more about vengeance than it is justice or for the state to show its dominance over its citizens. Neither of which are commendable.

Oh, its definitely about vengeance, people want blood today!

I was reading a FB post about the husband of a daycare worker that was only accused of molesting like 5 kids over a 7 yr period (not even convicted yet)…there were roughly 340 comments, every single one was a wish for this person to be tortured or killed in some terrible way. We are really living in violent times, its not even important if someone is guilty or not anymore, as long as someone in law enforcement accuses guilt, thats enough for most?!!

So its not really about punishment or making sure the public is protected…its really about blood and vengeance.