The Death Penalty is a 'mortal sin'

[Ender]

You know, at the end of the day, definitions regarding both faith and morals is are the prerogative of the Magisterium…that is to say either the Pope acting alone or the College of Bishops acting in concert with the Pope. No one else. And no one gets to judge that or question that.

The only legitimate response on the part of everyone is docile acceptance and assent.

We do not, however, have any obligation to assent to or refrain from rejecting the interpretations of others about what is actually being taught.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You are in error to think the matter impinges upon intrinsic evil…at all.

It was a simple yes or no question, but I do understand your reluctance to answer it. If it is claimed that capital punishment is now intrinsically evil it would be a repudiation of 2000 years of church teaching or, as Archbishop Chaput said, a repudiation of herself. If, however, it is admitted that no, capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, then its use can be morally admissible in specific circumstances, which certainly calls into question the assertion that it is morally inadmissible.

To posit such is a fundamental error I would not accept from a first year theology student.

Really? Insults? Would you accept this from a theology student?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Popes don’t make moral issues like this mortal sins. They are already grave matter.

It’s not clear what you mean here. Are you saying capital punishment is gravely sinful, or just that it deals with a very grave subject?

The pope just enlightens people to the fact now that our society is more advanced.

What do you mean that our society is more advanced? The use of capital punishment is a moral question; are you saying that modern societies understand its moral implications better than those of the past? What enlightenment do you refer to? Can you explain what the pope just said?

Ender

 

[Ender]

None of these quotes contradict the Pope or catechism on the death penalty. They are referring to a blanket statement that capital punishment is objectively evil, which it obviously isn’t.

But if capital punishment is not objectively evil then the title of this thread is incorrect: we cannot say that the death penalty is a mortal sin, and, despite the pope’s recent comments on the matter, essentially nothing has changed. Capital punishment may still be legitimately used (however constrained the circumstances). What is being debated then are circumstances that permit it, and that is a prudential discussion.

Ender

 

[exnihilo]

The pope just enlightens people to the fact now that our society is more advanced.

How is our society more advanced? The West is technologically advanced but morally decayed.

Also, what society. The world is a diverse place. Is the Holy Father speaking to the West or the whole world?

If it is claimed that capital punishment is now intrinsically evil it would be a repudiation of 2000 years of church teaching or, as Archbishop Chaput said, a repudiation of herself. If, however, it is admitted that no, capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, then its use can be morally admissible in specific circumstances, which certainly calls into question the assertion that it is morally inadmissible.

Maybe I’ve missed it but I don’t see a really developed set of rules for judging capital punishment like I do with war. What is troubling to me is that what I do see seems to avoid acknowledging that capital punishment can be just. I also see a fair amount of condemnation for anyone who points out the obvious difficulties of broad statements condemning capital punishment. The Magisterium is invoked. But the Magisterium itself would be undermined if suddenly capital punishment is always and everywhere a mortal sin. The faith is not opposed to reason and reason tells us such a change in regards to capital punishment would be a change in doctrine.

But if capital punishment is not objectively evil then the title of this thread is incorrect: we cannot say that the death penalty is a mortal sin, and, despite the pope’s recent comments on the matter, essentially nothing has changed. Capital punishment may still be legitimately used (however constrained the circumstances). What is being debated then are circumstances that permit it, and that is a prudential discussion.

I agree. Except I don’t really see a debate about the circumstances. I see a fiat.

 

[Ender]

Maybe I’ve missed it but I don’t see a really developed set of rules for judging capital punishment like I do with war.

As far as I know there is only one definitive statement about the validity of capital punishment for a particular crime:*2260…
*

*For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image. *The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.
​

This does not suggest that every murderer without exception is to be executed, but it does mean that death is the just punishment for this crime.

Ender

 

[ringil]

Today we say this and yesterday we didn’t. If it is now then doctrine has changed. If doctrine changes we’ve got a serious problem.

Maybe slavery isn’t a sin then?

 

[exnihilo]

Maybe slavery isn’t a sin then?

That was my point. It is not intrinsically. If it were then doctrine has changed. A lot is said today that if true would repudiate the claim that doctrine never changes.

 

[St_Francis]

Maybe slavery isn’t a sin then?

I think there are various institutions which are called slavery. So, exchanging one’s future labor as payment for a debt is called slavery, as is exchanging labor for room and board when one is a POW (albeit widely defined).

Chattel slavery, where human beings are treated as animals by being captured, sold, and forced to work, often bred as livestock are bred with the children belonging to the owner and at his disposal, has been condemned by the Church since the 1400s.

In the case of debt, well, it is an exchange; in the case of the second, it is preferable to simply killing the prisoners a nation cannot hold. There is no similar justification for the last.

 

[St_Francis]

I have found this article to lay out the former Catholic view on the DP.

 

[pnewton]

You are in error to think the matter impinges upon intrinsic evil…at all.

The title of this thread may have tripped up a lot of people. The Pope did not call it a mortal sin, much less an intrinsic evil. We should stick with the word he used: inadmissible. That alone is sufficient for Catholics to understand that we should not be accepting of the death penalty today.

Try selling that in Texas.

 

[exnihilo]

The title of this thread may have tripped up a lot of people. The Pope did not call it a mortal sin, much less an intrinsic evil. We should stick with the word he used: inadmissible. That alone is sufficient for Catholics to understand that we should not be accepting of the death penalty today.

Try selling that in Texas.

He linked it to slavery which he said is now a mortal sin. So it is natural to assume he means the death penalty now is a mortal sin like slavery became a mortal sin.

I just hope something like smoking doesn’t become a mortal sin. I haven’t for years but if I don’t die before it becomes a mortal sin how can I obtain Heaven?

 

[pnewton]

So it is natural to assume…

As with most things, we must often fight against our nature. Assuming is not a good idea with this Pope.

Remember, an analogy use need not be an exact analogy. It may only touch on one point, and usually is only used for one point of comparison.

 

[exnihilo]

As with most things, we must often fight against our nature. Assuming is not a good idea with this Pope.

Remember, an analogy use need not be an exact analogy. It may only touch on one point, and usually is only used for one point of comparison.

This isn’t an issue of human nature but basic communication. It is best to be as clear as possible about what you are saying is similar.

Regardless, shouldn’t the faithful be told if this is in fact now a mortal sin? If that which was not previously sin is now sin we need to know how severe a sin it is.

 

[pnewton]

This isn’t an issue of human nature but basic communication. It is best to be as clear as possible about what you are saying is similar.

I think it important to remember that we did not hear the homily, much less in our own language. We have snippets of quotes translated. Should the journalist have been clearer? Maybe. The OP surely should have, as he violated forum rules by changing the title of the thread, though I am sure it was an innocent error.

One thing is certain. We all must approach news articles of all kinds with an understanding of their limitations.

 

[Peebo]

He linked it to slavery which he said is now a mortal sin. So it is natural to assume he means the death penalty now is a mortal sin like slavery became a mortal sin.

I just hope something like smoking doesn’t become a mortal sin. I haven’t for years but if I don’t die before it becomes a mortal sin how can I obtain Heaven?

Interesting point… decades ago I was a Pentecostal and was an avid smoker…one of the Bible verses often quoted to me was 1 Cor 6:19
Douay-Rheims Bible
Or know you not, that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God; and you are not your own ? …and lets face it…it is bad for our health in many ways…I did quit smoking by the way…but then many things are bad if we over indulge in them

 

[TMC]

That was my point. It is not intrinsically. If it were then doctrine has changed. A lot is said today that if true would repudiate the claim that doctrine never changes.

Who says doctrine never changes? Doctrine obviously changes, or “evolves” if you prefer. Several examples of doctrinal evolution have been cited on this thread.

 

[Ender]

The title of this thread may have tripped up a lot of people. The Pope did not call it a mortal sin, much less an intrinsic evil. We should stick with the word he used: inadmissible. That alone is sufficient for Catholics to understand that we should not be accepting of the death penalty today.

If it is not a mortal sin is it a venial one? What does inadmissible mean in this context? That it is not acceptable regardless of circumstances? If so isn’t that a contradiction of the catechism which says it is acceptable in specific (if quite constrained) circumstances? Is this more than a prudential judgment about when it should be used, and if not, is it really any more than what JPII said?

Ender

 

[mythbuster1]

Putting a man to death for theft would be grave matter. Putting a man to death for murder is commanded by the Torah. It is mercy, not justice, that spares the murderer’s life.

 

[irenaeus1]

What I have never understood is what is meant by ‘nowadays’?.. as if every nation and government in the world today has advanced their criminal penal systems to make the death penalty completely unwarranted. Many countries’ criminal justice systems are where the U.S.‘s and others’ were 50 or 100 years ago.