Pope Declares Death Penalty Inadmissible in All Cases

[Guest]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

And yes if anyone is wondering I do believe that former Cardinal McCarrick should be arrested and if found guilty of crimes of pedophilia be hung by the neck until dead. Child rape by clergy has gone on far enough. As a victim of that vile crime I find Pope Francis inaction even easily mistakenable enabling of these pedo predators bothbsick and sad.

Didn't know you were a victim. Sincere prayers and very sorry that happened to you. My gut instinct is pedophiles and murderers should be put to death. But I don't want to be a cafeteria Catholic so I have to accept the teaching being put forward.

It's interesting all the Catholics who accuse others of being cafeteria Catholics are the ones guilty now. But apparently it's okay when they're the ones picking and choosing what to accept and ignore.

Doctrine delvolpes. Popes used to own slaves and the Church said it was fine. Now it's not. Slavery is evil. Nomatter how many times it was approved and praised in the Bible. Or by the Catholic Church.

I know people are scared gay marriage will be next. I don't think that would ever happen. The Holy Spirit wouldn't allow it. Although The Holy Spirit did allow this so either you accept the teaching or become a cafeteria Catholic.

Unless you are saying the Church is now in Schism and Francis is an Anti-Pope. A lot of the Greatest Catholics Of All Time have been saying that for awhile or deeply insinuating it without completely coming out and saying it.

As far as all the sexual abuse and cover ups the past 3 popes have been huge let downs on that. Pretty sad. Not judging them cause the measurement I weigh out will be returned to me. But yeah pedapholies and all that is messed up. I agree with you that it seems just they be put to death. But if I'm not going to accept all the Church's teachings I won't be Catholic. I'm trash and a gigantic sinner but I accept all the Church's teachings. Including the death penalty one now. A cafeteria Catholic I am not.

Edited August 4, 2018 by Guest

[little2add]

On 8/2/2018 at 8:24 PM, BarbaraTherese said:

If I am for life, then it has to be for the whole of life.  Also, we are called to forgive, definitely not to kill.

It began with a simple boycott of Jewish shops and ended in the gas chambers at Auschwitz as Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers attempted to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe.

 killing to stop the above may be an exception to the rule. 

[linate]

Quote

https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/n013rp_DeathPenalty_Popes.htm

Innocent I

The first Pope to take a stand in favor of the death penalty was Innocent I in the year 405. In response to a query from the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent I based his position on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. He wrote: 

It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn 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. 

 

 

(Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum,
20 February 405, PL 20,495)

 

 

Innocent III

The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude. 

 

 

(Innocent III, DS 795/425)

 

Pius XII

Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life. 

 

 

(Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology 
of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)

 

 

Catechism of the Council of Trent

The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives. 

In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). 

 

 

(Roman Catechism of the Council of Tre

 

[dominicansoul]

6 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

It remains perfectly moral and in line with the Scared Scripture and Sacred Tradition to execute murderers and even pedophiles.  Doctrine cannot charge nor can it develop to the point it contradicts what was previously taught. It remains a fact of the Deposit of Faith the state has the right of the sword to punish evil doers. 

It is pro-life to execute murderers as that is the only punishment equal to the innocent life stolen. No amount of time in any prison is equal to the innocent taken. A man that rapes and murders children could justly be executed based primarily, even solely, on the crime committed even without being any danger to society in future. 

Pope Francis should be far more concerned with the pedophile crisis in the Church than saving the lives of wicked men who've deprived others of their lives. I will continue to believe as the Church has always taught, as part of the Deposit of Faith, that there are times when it is just to put wicked men to death for their crimes.

I’ve been reading Peters, watching EWTN, listening to some of my Dominican family. So far no one has said this was a change in the teaching, but more of Francis’ opinion and has no bearing as “mortal sin.”

i don’t believe we need the death penalty.  I never said i supported it, I have always held the opinion not to kill criminals.  But I totally agreed and thought it wise that the Church kept it an option “just in case.” 

 

 I think our country has created an expansive and expensive prison system to keep the murdering marauders securely away from us.  I feel sorry for those countries who have no way to keep their murderers in check.  

I guess we Let the criminals have their way.  Our future is paradise...  

Edited August 4, 2018 by dominicansoul

[Anomaly]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

What you wrote was not respect. It was condescension.

Maybe to you it came off that way, but not my intention.  It may be because you find my atheism so offensive.  I can appreciate your perspective, and apologize.  

But my intent was to point out my opinion that it is not necessary or fair to paint the new verbiage as such a major issue, or cause to become upset with Catholicism or the Pope (while making sure my opinion is not as a fellow Catholic.).  

Although it may be only an prudential opinion of the Pope and Clergy, it is a big deal to choose to actively disagree.  Pretty much I’m in agreement with your response to domincansoul above.

[Peace]

11 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

It remains perfectly moral and in line with the Scared Scripture and Sacred Tradition to execute murderers and even pedophiles.  Doctrine cannot charge nor can it develop to the point it contradicts what was previously taught. It remains a fact of the Deposit of Faith the state has the right of the sword to punish evil doers. 

It is pro-life to execute murderers as that is the only punishment equal to the innocent life stolen. No amount of time in any prison is equal to the innocent taken. A man that rapes and murders children could justly be executed based primarily, even solely, on the crime committed even without being any danger to society in future. 

Pope Francis should be far more concerned with the pedophile crisis in the Church than saving the lives of wicked men who've deprived others of their lives. I will continue to believe as the Church has always taught, as part of the Deposit of Faith, that there are times when it is just to put wicked men to death for their crimes.

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."

@KnightofChrist

Why should I accept your personal opinions and reject what is written in the Catechism?

@KnightofChrist

Obviously Pope John Paul II knows a whole lot more about Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition than you do, so I do not see any good reason why I should go with your interpretation, and reject his.

Or are you saying that Pope John Paul II has wilfully gone against Sacred Scripture and Tradition? Are you saying that he knows that your position is correct, but he has purposefully taught the opposite anyway?

Edited August 4, 2018 by Peace

[Guest]

13 hours ago, little2add said:

It began with a simple boycott of Jewish shops and ended in the gas chambers at Auschwitz as Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers attempted to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe.

 killing to stop the above may be an exception to the rule. 

............and the exception proves the rule...........

[Guest]

 14 hours ago, little2add said: It began with a simple boycott of Jewish shops and ended in the gas chambers at Auschwitz as Adolf Hitler and his Nazi followers attempted to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe.

 killing to stop the above may be an exception to the rule. 

 

Barbara Therese : ..........and the exception proves the rule...........

 

Pope Francis is changing paragarph 2267

 

Just War CCC:

2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

- there must be serious prospects of success;

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

 

Defense of the persecuted

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

[Guest]

It is an extremely serious matter to kill another human being for any reason.  The 5th Commandment states "Thou shalt not kill".  We cannot avoid that with any sort of rationalisation or excuse to kill another human being(s) - we need to be acutely aware of that fact and before reasons are stated for just and permissable killing.  I think that The Church recognises the seriousness.  

We also need to grasp - to my mind:  "Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound  in heaven: andwhatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Matthew Ch18

I think that what Pope Francis has in mind is a determined underscoring of the sanctity of all life and therefore that the death penalty as a punishment for a crime and protection of the innocent is now forbidden because nowadays other means are available to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.  We are being consistent about pro whole of life.

Quote

 

Alteration to #2267 in the CCC:   "Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that ‘the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,’ and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.”

 

[little2add]

exception conception

[Seven77]

I wonder, is the death penalty in the US actually sought and applied in order to defend innocent people from being murdered – – or is it a meansof revenge killing? It seems to me to be the latter. It's like we don't want the rehabilitation and repentance of criminals – – we want them to burn in hell for all eternity so we kill them before they have a chance to repent.

About Pope Francis' declaration though, I'm not really sure what to make of it. I think it's not the best timing because it seems to deflect from the recent abuse crisis, like trying to score PR points for those that were lost. Maybe there is a connection: it's an implicit statement that the former Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, McCarrick should not be publicly executed (as much as it sometimes seems fitting that he should be hung for his crimes).

At one point, those who are put to death were unborn children with human dignity but now that they are criminals, they no longer have it. There are some pregnant women who think that they should abort their babies because they will grow up to be criminals If you think about it, abolishing the death penalty as it exists today, is a pro-life action that testifies to the dignity of human life.

I think that when Jesus says that they would've been better for Judas not to have been born, it's a prophetic statement that applies because Judas did not repent and killed himself which possibly puts him in hell. If he didn't kill himself, he may have had the opportunity to repent and not end up in hell.

Just some thoughts.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Seven77 said:

I think that when Jesus says that they would've been better for Judas not to have been born, it's a prophetic statement that applies because Judas did not repent 

Matthew 27:3

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.

 

Sounds pretty close to repentance to me...

Edited August 6, 2018 by Guest

[little2add]

3 hours ago, Seven77 said:

At one point, those who are put to death were unborn children with human dignity but now that they are criminals, they no longer have it. There are some pregnant women who think that they should abort their babies because they will grow up to be criminals If you think about it, abolishing the death penalty as it exists today, is a pro-life action that testifies to the dignity of human life.

 

[Seven77]

2 hours ago, Josh said:

Matthew 27:3

When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders.

 

Sounds pretty close to repentance to me...

Remorse and repentance are two different things. Remorse may sound close to repentance but close is not quite good enough. For Judas, it stopped right there. He killed himself because he thought that he could not be forgiven – – why else would he kill himself? If he believed he could have been forgiven, he wouldn't have done that. Peter actually repented – – because he believed that Jesus could forgive him. Jesus statement that it was better for Judas not to have been born hints that he damned himself. The betrayal itself doesn't warrant not being born… But the betrayal and lack of repentance for the betrayal might, especially if leads to ending up in hell. If somebody's going to end up in hell, yeah, it's probably better for that person not to have been born.

34 minutes ago, little2add said:

 

I don't think I was doing that. I was just making an observation that a convicted murderer was once an unborn baby. While an innocent unborn baby put to death is a more serious offense than a convicted murderer put to death, they both have human dignity, because once you have human dignity you always have human dignity… Being a murderer doesn't take away from your human dignity that is intrinsic to you. The murderer dehumanizes himself by committing murder. But intrinsically, he still has human dignity.

[dUSt]

On 8/4/2018 at 2:45 AM, Ash Wednesday said:

Phatmass barbecue at Anomaly's 

I'll bring the hummus!

[dominicansoul]

This book is being mentioned in every discussion I’m in... check it out...

https://www.ignatius.com/By-Man-Shall-His-Blood-Be-Shed-P1665.aspx

 

[Ash Wednesday]

I think people that are confused or concerned about this development shouldn't be branded as cafeteria Catholics. Keep in mind that this was a bomb dropped on people virtually overnight. Generally the concerns I've seen raised by it have to do with its wordage and continuity with traditional teachings of the Church, even statements as recent as Benedict XVI and John Paul II. These are questions raised by other theologians and canon lawyers and faithful Catholics at large who have known John Paul II's interpretation for their entire adult lives and are also well versed on previous papal statements and theologians on the death penalty, and nobody is in a place to question whether or not they should be allowed communion just because they are struggling with it -- when their concerns largely have to do with upholding the tradition of the Church and whether or not it is adding to the confusion of how doctrine actually develops. It's a legitimate concern as to whether or not people are going to be misled about how this is done. To lump them into the same category as cafeteria Catholics who favor abortion and artificial contraception when we all know those were NEVER permitted by the Church -- is ridiculous. I question the charity and intentions of people that are making statements like this.

My understanding of it is that the teachings and development of teachings over time have to do with the application of the death penalty, rather than exclusively the death penalty in itself. The Church never considered the death penalty to be a virtue in itself but rather something that was allowed. 

I generally have been opposed to the usage of the death penalty in most modern circumstances but there's going to be some debate and confusion and I think the wording may still need to be revised in the future. 

I found this article helpful.

http://catholicherald.co.ukww001000e2d01w.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2018/08/04/the-catechism-and-the-death-penalty-are-catholics-right-to-be-worried/

[CatherineM]

I don’t think it happened overnight. John Paul, Benedict and Francis have all talked about the death penalty. They have personally requested clemency from governors. That section of the Catechism was revised tighter previously. 

I have been expecting it for awhile. 

[BG45]

Logged in to see what PM was thinking about this, and it's amazing how many people said during my conversion that the Church is not a democracy and understanding was not required, only obedience, now think that the Church should be a democracy.

 

As for comparisons to convicted murderers and abortion; one new study shows that at least 1 in 25 "convicted murderers" in the U.S. was factually innocent.  Since 1973, the year abortion was legalized, 144 people who were on death row were exonerated of their supposed crimes.  

[Ash Wednesday]

28 minutes ago, CatherineM said:

I don’t think it happened overnight. John Paul, Benedict and Francis have all talked about the death penalty. They have personally requested clemency from governors. That section of the Catechism was revised tighter previously. 

I have been expecting it for awhile. 

Which is fine, but not everyone has. 

John Paul II and Benedict XVI were in opposition to the death penalty but generally there also was some leeway as far as whether or not Catholics could support it. This is a step forward that I think some Catholics are going to have to grapple with if they supported it before. It's not really an issue to me, personally, but I don't think it's right to mock and take jabs at Catholics that have felt this way by calling them Cafeteria Catholics or implying that they aren't worthy of communion. I don't think it's charitable. 

On the bright side here.... I'm loving the phatmassers and familiar names coming back to discuss this!