Voting for pro death penalty president?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pro-life (in the modern context) refers to being anti-abortion. As for the death penalty, God empowers the governments to administer His wrath (as in the death penalty) to criminals that deserve it.

Romans
{13:1} Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God.
{13:2} Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation.
{13:3} For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.
{13:4} For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
Click to expand...
In the greek, the word “minister” is diakonos which means “servent”. This is where we get the word deacon. The servent that administers God’s wrath sounds alot like the death penalty (because it is).

Unless you are seriously equating the crimes of mass muderers, serial rapists, and traitors to the unborn and their “crime” of wanting to be born. Being for the death penalty and pro-life is more about being pro-justice. For it is a great injustice that people murder the unborn but allow hardened criminals to go free or live a life of slavery.
 
Only recently. It has been tradition long before that.
Pope Innocent I (AD 405) in Ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, PL 20, 495, defended the death penalty:
It must be remembered that power was granted by God, and to avenge crime the sword was permitted; he who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Romans 13:1-4). What motive have we for condemning a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.
Click to expand...
This isn’t even getting into Saints Aquinas or Augustine.

Additionally the catechism is not infallible.

If recent teachings goes agianst scripture and what has been traditionally taught in God’s church it can be safely ignored. Just because a prelate changes something doesn’t automatically make it right. If it did, than the preists that allowed idolatry in God’s temple during the era of Ezekiel did nothing wrong.
 
childinthefaith said:
I’ve had to consider this very point since the Church decided against the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Morality is not decided, it is discerned, and you really have to ask yourself how much trust you can have in a church that cannot discern the truth about whether prisoners can be executed. If we are ready to accept that the church failed for over 2000 years to discern the truth of this matter, what is the argument that she has correctly discerned it now?

There is in my mind no good resolution to this problem if we assume the church has just recently reversed 2000 years of doctrine. If, however, we understand the position to be prudential, that it is not doctrine, and the past has not been repudiated, then the problem vanishes.
Metis1 said:
I agree with the Catechism in that we really cannot consider ourselves to be Pro-Life if we sanction the death penalty in countries whereas there’s jails and prisons.
Click to expand...
If “inadmissible” in the update to the catechism means “inadmissible in all cases” - that is, an intrinsic evil - then the state of a country’s prison system is irrelevant, and JPII’s position is denied. There would be no argument that capital punishment is disallowed except where it is necessary for protection. Protection becomes irrelevant.
Plus the death penalty is based at least partially on a false premise, namely that a person who commits murder cannot repent and change their lives.
Click to expand...
That was never assumed. Repentance, however, does not eliminate the need for punishment, and I’ve not encountered an argument that all murderers, no matter how heinous their crimes, should be given reduced sentences should they repent.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
Morality is not decided, it is discerned, and you really have to ask yourself how much trust you can have in a church that cannot discern the truth about whether prisoners can be executed. If we are ready to accept that the church failed for over 2000 years to discern the truth of this matter, what is the argument that she has correctly discerned it now?
Click to expand...
The Church taught that the end of human law is the common good. The death penalty is legitimate when it serves that end and forbidden when it causes more harm than good to that end.

In the past the Church’s prudential judgement was that it served the common good. Today considering all that the common good encompasses, it judges that it is doing more harm than good.
 
Emeraldlady said:
In the past the Church’s prudential judgement was that it served the common good. Today considering all that the common good encompasses, it judges that it is doing more harm than good.
Click to expand...
Well there you go: this answers the OP’s question about whether you can vote for someone who supports the death penalty. The change in the catechism is a prudential judgment, not new doctrine, and as such it does not require our acceptance. So, if we disagree with that judgment, and believe that capital punishment is in fact justified, we are free to support it…and vote for politicians who also support it.
 
Last edited:
1cthlctrth said:
and we currently have perhaps the most pro-life President in American history.
Click to expand...
If you believe that, then that would be a good reason to vote for him. I do not. He is rather pro-birth, at least in the last few years.
 
Ender said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
In the past the Church’s prudential judgement was that it served the common good. Today considering all that the common good encompasses, it judges that it is doing more harm than good.
Click to expand...
Well there you go: this answers the OP’s question about whether you can vote for someone who supports the death penalty. The change in the catechism is a prudential judgment, not new doctrine, and as such it does not require our acceptance. So, if we disagree with that judgment, and believe that capital punishment is in fact justified, we are free to support it…and vote for politicians who also support it.
Click to expand...
Yes, people that genuinely believe that the death penalty serves the common good by making a safer community… perhaps have lived experience or have access to sociological data that informs them in a unique way… they can legitimately have that belief.

Where I see the Church having to make a further firm statement, is to deny the heretical position that the Church regards the death penalty as intrinsically just; not capable of being an immoral act, merely at most, ‘unwise’. That is blatantly false.
 
Last edited:
We are to obey the Pope. The one we have now. As Pope Francis clearly explains, the world has changed.
 
TheLittleLady said:
We are to obey the Pope.
Click to expand...
The church is reasonably clear on this point. We are to assent to doctrines, whether they be infallible or ordinary, but we have no obligation to assent to prudential judgments.

Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)
 
It’s a false dichotomy created by the American Right. Sadly some Catholics have bought into it. Catholicism is authentically and holistically pro-life. That includes opposing abortion… but goes far beyond the womb.
 
The Vatican’s letter that accompanied the Catechism update was very clear that this change represented an authentic development of doctrine, not a mere prudential matter. We are bound by the living Magisterium.
 
Last edited:
Ender said:
There is in my mind no good resolution to this problem if we assume the church has just recently reversed 2000 years of doctrine. If, however, we understand the position to be prudential, that it is not doctrine, and the past has not been repudiated, then the problem vanishes.
Click to expand...
Having not been formally declared, it was not doctrine…jus sayin’
 
twf said:
The Vatican’s letter that accompanied the Catechism update was very clear that this change represented an authentic development of doctrine, not a mere prudential matter. We are bound by the living Magisterium.
Click to expand...
That letter, like the change itself, was ambiguous. Even the American bishops don’t understand it, and if we can’t understand it it’s not clear what exactly we are bound to believe. As I pointed out before, the question “What does ‘inadmissible’ mean?” was asked by the bishops at their annual meeting last November.

That this question could be raised by the bishops seems proof enough of doubt about the meaning of the change, but the response stunningly embraced the confusion. It was declared to be an “elegant ambiguity”, and the issue was dropped.

If the bishops can’t (or won’t) define its meaning I have no problem going with my interpretation of it.
 
vote with your conscience. The Church isn’t going to tell you who to vote for. if that were the case ever politician who misses mass wouldn’t be allowed.
 
At this time, I think it is a safe bet for Catholics to oppose the death penalty… regardless of any ambiguity around the nature of the present teaching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top