Voting for pro death penalty president?

[Paul_Edwards]

Pope Pius XII was undoubted Pro Life, and yet supported the death penalty. All things considering I think that should answer the question for us. Unless we are to suggest that Pope Pius and his predecessors were not prolife, in which case the whole idea that being prolife matches with the catholic identity becomes a completely false concept. Would anyone dare to say that Pope Pius is not prolife? That’s what those are suggesting who say that you can’t be pro life and pro death penalty.

The term “Pro life” has always been understood to mean “pro innocent life” in fact until all this pacifist rubbish came along in the last few decades. The whole point about being prolife is about protecting the innocent and vulnerable, which sometimes means taking the life of those who attack in war or who will commit murders otherwise etc. hence it is because that people are prolife that they support the death penalty rather than despite it or opposite.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Pope Pius XII was undoubted Pro Life, and yet supported the death penalty. All things considering I think that should answer the question for us. Unless we are to suggest that Pope Pius and his predecessors were not prolife, in which case the whole idea that being prolife matches with the catholic identity becomes a completely false concept. Would anyone dare to say that Pope Pius is not prolife? That’s what those are suggesting who say that you can’t be pro life and pro death penalty.

Pope Pius was ‘pro death penalty’ when the government deemed that sentence to serve the common good. Today governments have decided otherwise hence the anti death penalty endorsement of the Pope. The US is being inhibited in abolition by a ‘faction’ who don’t have genuine Christian sentiments which is why the Vatican has spoken out so strongly.

 

[EndTimes]

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

No one in the world should vote for any who support the murder of babes in the womb

 

[LuigiDaniele]

Seems to me to be a deflection. Babies are absolute innocence. Murders: not so much.

 

[Metis1]

Real pro-life = against abortion + against capital punishment + support of the Just-War Theory or non-violence. Everything else is at least partially “pro-death” in reality. Remember, Jesus said “Let he whom is without sin cast the first stone” and “Be as wise as serpents but as harmless as doves”, less we forget what the Gospel actually says.

 

[Annie]

Real pro-life = against abortion + against capital punishment + support of the Just-War Theory or non-violence.

This is your opinion, not a fact.

Pro-life is a term which was coined to describe being against legal permission to kill unborn babies.

To add more issues in causes a dilution of the abortion issue and potentially a diffusion of the resources of the movement.

The idea that being prolife should include other opinions is an argument that comes out every 4 years as Democrats try to persuade Catholics to vote for them.

 

[Annie]

If Church teaching changed only five minutes ago, it is still Church teaching.

No, Church teaching can not be changed this way on a moral or faith-related matter. Either the Church teaches infallibly on faith and morals or it does not.

Why wouldn’t teaching be updated to address current issues? That’s the reason for the living Magisterium

Capital punishment is not a current issue for which we need a living Magisterium. CP has been around since long before the Church and throughout Church history, and throughout that latter time, the Church has specified that CP is not wrong if applied to malefactors.

The proper application of the living Magisterium to current issues is to understand the morality of new acts such as nuclear weapons or IVF.

 

[StudentMI]

St John Paul II did say it wasn’t prudent in developed countries in this day and age, however.

 

[Annie]

One is permitted to disagree with the Pope on prudential matters as the Pope is infallible only in matters of faith and morals.

 

[ioannes_pius]

The proper application of the living Magisterium to current issues is to understand the morality of new acts such as nuclear weapons or IVF.

It doesn’t belong to us as individual members of the faithful to decide which issues are and aren’t suitable for the Magisterium to address today. That is for, you guessed it, the Magisterium itself to decide!

 

[StudentMI]

I’ll go with the Catechism on the issue, thanks. His position was reiterated in the Catechism and he was much smarter than me.

 

[Annie]

What I am objecting on this thread is not being for or against the DP, but the idea that the Church’s teaching on this issue has changed.

 

[StudentMI]

Oh okay. Then I agree with you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I recommend the book By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed by Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette.

 

[Annie]

It doesn’t belong to us as individual members of the faithful to decide which issues are and aren’t suitable for the Magisterium to address today. That is for, you guessed it, the Magisterium itself to decide!

@Emeraldlady suggested that it was all right for the Magisterium to change Church teaching on the basis that the Magisterium exists for the weighing of “current issues;” what I wrote was a response to that comment.

Most certainly, one cannot claim that a change in Church teaching can be justified in that way, which is what I was trying to get across.

 

[ioannes_pius]

Ah okay, I see.

 

[Annie]

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.

Pro-life is against the taking of innocent life. That is a completely different issue than what to do with criminals guilty of committing heinous acts. The two issues are simply unrelated.

.

 

[Metis1]

Pro-life is a term which was coined to describe being against legal permission to kill unborn babies.

Note that I did not capitalize “pro-life”, so your comment above does not apply.

Thus, “pro-life” is indeed pro-life, not “pick & choose-life”. The former fits; the latter doesn’t, thus there simply is no moral high-ground if one only applies it to the issue of abortion.

For example, some “Pro-Life” oriented believe in capital punishment even though there are jails and prisons in pretty much all countries today, and yet Jesus said “Whom is the first to cast the first stone?” when a prostitute was to be executed under Jewish Law. Are we just going to ignore those words from Jesus while insisting we’re “Pro-Life”?

And what about acts of war, whereas Jesus said “Be as wise as serpents but harmless as doves” and “He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”? Is “shock & awe” and the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima compatible with Jesus’ words?

I don’t believe in picking & choosing on which of Jesus’ teachings I choose to follow.

 

[godisgood77]

Pro-life is against the taking of innocent life. That is a completely different issue than what to do with criminals guilty of committing heinous acts. The two issues are simply unrelated.

Pro-life for the whole life Annie.

 

[Bernoulli]

“He who lives by the sword shall die by the sword”

Are you aware that these words could actually refer to carrying out the capital punishment, that is, if Peter had attacked the soldiers, he would have been sentenced to death?

 

[TK421]

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.

Neither St Augustine nor St Aquinas believed that something should be legally practiced if it did not contribute towards the common good of society. In other words: if they were alive today we can be almost 100% certain that they would submit to & support official Church teaching, which is opposition to capital punishment. Injecting the writings of two men who passed away centuries ago - and existed in a vastly different world - into a contemporary prudential issue is a bit shady and underhanded.

The priests in Ezekiel’s era did not have/not have have official Church teaching, and they were doing something in violation of the Torah on the most basic level.

Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St JP2 both oppose/opposed capital punishment. The issue has become more direct recently but that is to be expected as the rule of law in societies continues to develop. If it didn’t change under Pope Francis then it would have changed under the next person.