Voting for pro death penalty president?

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Why wouldn’t teaching be updated to address current issues?

Because morality does not change with time or place.

That’s only the case for intrinsic evils. You are falsely claiming that the death penalty is intrinsically just or moral. It isn’t. It must serve the common good to be moral.

Under the leadership of our beloved Pope John Paul II, Catholic teaching on the death penalty has been articulated and applied with greater clarity and strength.

It’s been obvious to many Catholics that the Church over the last 20 years has had to address a false claim by a ‘faction’ in the US, that is preventing the natural trend in society to abolish the death penalty. If not for this ‘faction’ and their false claims about the nature of the death penalty, it would have been abolished. That is why the Church can at this time, confidently state that it is inadmissible. ie not allowed. The 2000 year old position of the Church is being distorted by false claims that the death penalty is intrinsically just. That’s just a lie.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I’m thinking it would because it could act as a deterrent against further life-threatening violence by that gang. You could apply the same logic to terrorist groups, drug cartels, child sex-trafficking organizations, etc.

Those are already dangerous so probably not. The death penalty is hardly used at all so it wouldn’t work anyways.

 

[Ender]

As I understand what the Church teaches, (paraphrased)

if the criminal can’t be controlled, with the resources available, and threatens the lives of others as a result, the death penalty is the last resort but still a resort .

The death penalty can be justified only if it is a punishment fit for the crime, e.g. murder. After determining that it is just a determination can be made as to whether it is appropriate under the particular circumstances. It seems to me that this is where the question of protection would be addressed. This is how I understand the previous version of 2267.

But 2267 has been changed, and the question now is how to understand what “inadmissible” means, because there is no caveat there that provides an exception for protection. That is, it seems to be a repudiation of what JPII wrote. How do you understand the new version?

 

[Metis1]

If we truly believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, then we should not be surprised that the Church sometimes changes positions on certain items. In a country that has jails and prisons, it is in no way being “pro-life” to still be for capital punishment when there are alternatives. And on top of that, we’ve seen numerous people released from death row when it became clear later that they could not have committed murder. How many others historically were falsely executed, which is why Michigan became the first state to outlaw it back in the 1800’s.
Thus, if we truly believe that God should be in charge of such life & death matters, then there’s no justification whatsoever for capital punishment in a civilized society.

 

[Welshrabbit]

And on top of that, we’ve seen numerous people released from death row when it became clear later that they could not have committed murder

This is what truly scares me about the death penalty. I know how utterly incompetent government can be…to think that innocent people have been put to death because of it gives me chills.

 

[Metis1]

Exactly. And we about three weeks ago here in Michigan we had a man who was in prison for 1st degree murder for 30 years released because the d.n.a. tests proved that it was not him that raped and killed a teen back then.

 

[Ender]

If we truly believe in the power of the Holy Spirit, then we should not be surprised that the Church sometimes changes positions on certain items.

If we truly believed in the Holy Spirit then we should believe that morality does not change over time and that what he once taught as true would never become false. What are you suggesting here? that the Spirit changed his mind? that he was mistaken before but got it right now? that what was good once has now become evil? that the church was wrong all those years because the Spirit never clarified the point and just left the church to wander in sin for 2000 years? Consider the implications of your claim.

Thus, if we truly believe that God should be in charge of such life & death matters, then there’s no justification whatsoever for capital punishment in a civilized society.

Is God not equally in charge of life and death in uncivilized societies? If capital punishment is evil it is evil irrespective of where it is applied. The opposite is just as true: if it is morally valid anywhere it is valid everywhere. As to the claim that only God may decide on matters of life and death, that is not what the church has ever taught.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

 

[Metis1]

I’m pro-life, so I’ll let that just speak for itself.

 

[Ender]

I’m pro-life, so I’ll let that just speak for itself.

I’m sure I am equally pro-life; my position on the death penalty does not change that. If it did we would have to accept that the church was not really pro-life until 2018.

 

[porthos11]

Metis1:

And on top of that, we’ve seen numerous people released from death row when it became clear later that they could not have committed murder

This is what truly scares me about the death penalty. I know how utterly incompetent government can be…to think that innocent people have been put to death because of it gives me chills.

And this is where prudence and the inadmissibility of the death penalty comes in. This does not makes the death penalty intrinsically immoral; the Church can never teach this, otherwise, she loses her claim to infallibility. But as a matter of being careful, this is a very strong argument to abolish the death penalty on prudential grounds.

And as someone mentioned earlier, prudence is a moral virtue in itself. One can still argue for the abolition of the death penalty on prudential grounds, which does carry a moral component (one can sin mortally by refusing to exercise proper prudence in a grave matter). This is where one should argue from with regards to the death penalty. Not because it’s immoral in and of itself, and not because it’s a pro-life issue (it is not), but rather because there are strong, compelling reasons to not implement it.

The key difference with the death penalty is that it is not intrinsically evil, unlike abortion and euthanasia, which makes it less of a pro-life issue.

 

[Welshrabbit]

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Excellent post.

 

[Ender]

And this is where prudence and the inadmissibility of the death penalty comes in. This does not makes the death penalty intrinsically immoral; the Church can never teach this, otherwise, she loses her claim to infallibility. But as a matter of being careful, this is a very strong argument to abolish the death penalty on prudential grounds.

I agree that it is valid to oppose capital punishment for prudential reasons.

And as mentioned earlier, prudence is a moral virtue in itself. One can still argue for the abolition of the death penalty on prudential grounds, which does carry a moral component (one can sin mortally by refusing to exercise proper prudence in a grave matter).

I don’t disagree that prudence is a moral virtue, or that we can sin by failing to exercise proper prudence. What concerns me about this is not that it isn’t accurate, but that it will become a back door to making moral judgments not about capital punishment but about the people who defend it.

There is a moral concern here:

…they are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord (Cardinal Dulles)

Dulles also, however, distinguishes between disagreeing with and disregarding. The former is legitimate even as the latter is not, and it is rarely a judgment others may properly make.

The key difference with the death penalty is that it is not intrinsically evil, unlike abortion and euthanasia, which makes it less of a pro-life issue.

Just so.

 

[Metis1]

Well said, and I fully agree.

 

[godisgood77]

It’s a little late to suddenly decide that Scripture doesn’t say what everyone believed it said up until now.

The Church’s teaching and traditions are living. The development of the Church’s teaching on capital punishment is well articulated in the Catechism and the letter from the CDF. Not a flippant change or contradiction, but a legitimate development… and a good one for the pro life movement.

 

[Ender]

The Church’s teaching and traditions are living. The development of the Church’s teaching on capital punishment is well articulated in the Catechism and the letter from the CDF. Not a flippant change or contradiction, but a legitimate development… and a good one for the pro life movement.

Can you explain how it has developed - what does it say now that expands (but not reverses) what was said before? What does “inadmissible” mean? What are the conditions that would permit capital punishment?

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

Good point.

I oppose both, so let’s do a quick search to see which might save more lives.

Number of deaths via death penalty in 2019 - 22

The Death Penalty in 2019: Year End Report | Death Penalty Information Center

Number of death via abortion in 2018 - 876,000

Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics

 

[Dr_Meinheimer]

I believe far too many conflate issues and mix issues of unequal gravity, and that is a bigger problem than being a one-issue voter, but that’s me.

 

[phil19034]

Considering the update to the catechism about the death penalty… can Catholics in good conscience vote for a pro death penalty president?

Yes, because the death penalty is NOT intrinsically evil. Pope Francis’s change to the catechism does NOT mean the death penalty is intrinsically evil.

It is the prudential judgement of Pope Francis that first world countries have the necessary criminal detention facilities necessary to avoid the death penalty. It’s also the prudential judgement of many Catholics that in order to convince people that abortion is wrong, we have to be against the death penalty too.

Regardless… this is a prudential judgement of the Pope & of many Catholics. However, that does NOT mean that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, because it is not. If it was, it was wrong, the Church would have been teaching that for 2000 years.

Abortion on the other hand, is intrinsically evil. There is NEVER a situation & has never been a situation in history when abortion was necessary and not evil.

In other words: people burn in hell because of abortion. However, they don’t burn in hell because of the Death Penalty.

 

[phil19034]

In my parish we pray for the sanctity of life “From conception to natural death”.

I’m not sure why we can’t be prolife and anti death penalty simultaneously.

You can be. But that was not the question.

The question is basically asking if the death penalty is intrinsically evil, like abortion is. It is an attempt by the left to place the death penalty and abortion on equal grounds in order for them to cancel each other out…

Abortion is 100% intrinsically evil. The death penalty is NOT intrinsically evil. Now, that doesn’t mean the death penalty can’t be misapplied or over used in a sinful way. But it is not intrinsically evil & not on par with abortion.

God bless

 

[Emeraldlady]

godisgood77:

The Church’s teaching and traditions are living. The development of the Church’s teaching on capital punishment is well articulated in the Catechism and the letter from the CDF. Not a flippant change or contradiction, but a legitimate development… and a good one for the pro life movement.

Can you explain how it has developed - what does it say now that expands (but not reverses) what was said before? What does “inadmissible” mean? What are the conditions that would permit capital punishment?

This was the position of Australian Catholic Bishops nearly a century ago.

Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers.

Freeman’s Journal Dec 4, 1924 (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1932) (Later to become the Catholic Weekly still being printed today)

So you see. It was a mistake in the past to assume that capital was mandated by God or was a divine law. It was always meant to be dictated by the common good at the hands of secular government.