Pope Seeks End To Death Penalty

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1323642810' post='2349315']

[b]CCC Paragraph [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a5.htm"]2267[/url][/b]

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."[sup]68[/sup]


Of course, the CCC [i]was [/i]promulgated by that new agey idiot JPII, so it isn't really good for anything anyway. And it's really only his opinion.[/quote]
"New Agey idiot" is your words, not mine. But keep on building strawmen. They're cute.

Whether right or wrong, the fact remains that Benedict XVI and John Paul II's opinions about there being no need for the death penalty in today's world are not dogma, and one is not a heretic for disagreeing with them, anymore than those are heretics who would disagree with past Popes that the death penalty is a necessary act of justice.


[quote]And from your earlier post:


Did anybody anywhere argue that dogma changes?[/quote]
J-lol did make a "crazy dope post, yo" against Catholics saying the current Popes quoted statements in favor of abolishing the death penalty are not dogma (they are not). Though he can be excused on account of his not being Catholic. I'm more concerned with the Catholics who agree with that notion, who ought to know better.

As Pope Benedict himself said (when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith):
[quote]While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment.[b] There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.[/b][/quote]

I know it's popular on phatmass to dismiss that particular document, but, while that document is not itself dogma, I think it safe to say that Cardinal Ratzinger knows what he is talking about regarding this matter far more than any Phatmasser.
If there in fact is no legitimate diversity of opinion, and those believing the death penalty may be applied are denying Catholic dogma or refusing to submit to Catholic teaching, he would have said so point-blank.
.
But, I'm impressed that the members of the Phatmass peanut gallery are more knowledgeable about this matter than the Pope.

[quote]But yeah, the Church smells of elderberries nowadays and was way better when we stoned prostitutes and homos and stuff.[/quote]
So have you been reading Jack Chick, or is it Atheists-R-Us-Dot-Com?

Anyway, Hail Progress!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1323674122' post='2349681']
You know what. I'm sorry for my posts in this thread Soc. I've been on edge lately and probably shouldn't unload my stress onto internet folk. I'll save all my fury for the people I meet in person
[/quote]
As they say up in New York, "fugehdaboudit."

[Laudate_Dominum]

[IMG]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h119/NoonienSoong_2006/phatmass/pope2.jpg[/IMG]

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1323740823' post='2350091']
J-lol did make a "crazy dope post, yo" against Catholics saying the current Popes quoted statements in favor of abolishing the death penalty are not dogma (they are not). Though he can be excused on account of his not being Catholic. I'm more concerned with the Catholics who agree with that notion, who ought to know better.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1323136348' post='2345239']
Waits for the inevitable responses from certain catholics about how the Pope's opinion is both not dogma and wrong.
[/quote]
[/quote]

strictly speaking, going by the content of that post alone, i am not necessarily speaking against those catholics, merely acknowledging them. of course, allowing for sarcasm and a knowledge of me, you are right.

you are also right in that it is not dogma, and even i know that. My point is that the Pope's opinion is generally considered very high, and that many catholics who support the death penalty choose to disregard it entirely. And several who go further about application of the death penalty in modern society tend to quote from a council that predates any modern prison system and laws, that often render the death penalty(as a system for protecting the public) moot.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1323740823' post='2350091']
Whether right or wrong, the fact remains that Benedict XVI and John Paul II's opinions about there being no need for the death penalty in today's world are not dogma, and one is not a heretic for disagreeing with them, anymore than those are heretics who would disagree with past Popes that the death penalty is a necessary act of justice.
[/quote]
So are you saying that the Catechism is nothing more than the opinion of JPII?

In any case, let's assume that you think it is. In this case, I present an excerpt from an encyclical (Evangelium Vitae) Pope New Agey Idiot himself:

[quote name='Paragraph 56']
This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence".[sup][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html#$1A"]46[/url][/sup] Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated. [sup][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html#$1B"]47[/url][/sup]
It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person".[sup][url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html#$1C"]48[/url][/sup]
[/quote]
[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]http://www.vatican.v...m-vitae_en.html[/url]


And before we have to have a discussion about papal encyclicals being nothing more than one pope's opinion, I submit the words of one slightly less New Agey guy, Pope Pius XII

[quote name='Humani Generis']19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free form error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.
20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.[/quote]

[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html"]http://www.vatican.v...generis_en.html[/url]


Merry Solsticetide from who must be the worst new agey liberal idjut ever.

Edited December 13, 2011 by USAirwaysIHS

[Papist]

Pope John Paul II is a new agey idiot? YOWZERS!

I think it is time to close this thread.

Edited December 13, 2011 by Papist

[AccountDeleted]

Dead people can't repent or be forgiven. Papa is right, as usual.

[Socrates]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1323750905' post='2350204']
So are you saying that the Catechism is nothing more than the opinion of JPII?

In any case, let's assume that you think it is. In this case, I present an excerpt from an encyclical (Evangelium Vitae) Pope New Agey Idiot himself:


[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html"]http://www.vatican.v...m-vitae_en.html[/url]


And before we have to have a discussion about papal encyclicals being nothing more than one pope's opinion, I submit the words of one slightly less New Agey guy, Pope Pius XII



[url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html"]http://www.vatican.v...generis_en.html[/url] [/quote]
Also from Pope Pius XII:

[quote]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.[/quote]

The problem is, we have well over 1500 years of Catholic teaching tradition affirming the justness of the death penalty.

[quote]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. [/quote]
~ Pope Innocent I, A.D. 405



[quote]Merry Solsticetide from who must be the worst new agey liberal idjut ever.[/quote]
And a peaceful, politically correct new agey Kwanzaa/Yule/Winter Celebration to you too.

[Socrates]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1323771329' post='2350299']
Dead people can't repent or be forgiven.
[/quote]
And Popes and Doctors of the Church for most of its 2000-year-old tradition didn't know that?

Saints have persuasively argued that a death sentence can help focus one's thoughts on eternity and final judgment in a way that staying in prison til death of old age does not.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1323891342' post='2351270']
And Popes and Doctors of the Church for most of its 2000-year-old tradition didn't know that?

Saints have persuasively argued that a death sentence can help focus one's thoughts on eternity and final judgment in a way that staying in prison til death of old age does not.
[/quote]
It's good to see that the saints of old had a good sense of humour as well as often being wrong.

Question:- When man fell, why did God sentence us to life in prison? And you've neva answered my question: Why did God forbid anyone to kill Cain, preferring him to 'experience' life in prison?

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1323638248' post='2349267']
As a clarification, the corrupt Renaissance popes I were referring to were those of the 15th century (pre-"Reformation," and pre-Trent), and I was simply referring to this time because it was a time notorious for corruption and decadence in the Church.

[/quote]
You argued with me once that the Catholic Church was always infallible. If it was wrong then how can you say it is not wrong in some ways now? I think this must logically invalidate some of your quotes, in fairness also the oppositions.
However 'Nunsense' gives us logic and 'Apo' says logic is the nature of God.

Edited December 14, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1323891342' post='2351270']
And Popes and Doctors of the Church for most of its 2000-year-old tradition didn't know that?

Saints have persuasively argued that a death sentence can help focus one's thoughts on eternity and final judgment in a way that staying in prison til death of old age does not.
[/quote]
Would you say that authority is the deepest criterion of truth on the question of the ethics and pragmatics of capital punishment? Popes and doctors represent the highest authority, which then leads to an unequivocal inductive argument that decides the matter in favor of your view? Or something?

I think this topic is interesting and I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1323891211' post='2351268']
The problem is, we have well over 1500 years of Catholic teaching tradition affirming the justness of the death penalty.
[/quote]

Because the death penalty is just in some cases does not make it just in all cases. Like, for instance, when non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, which is almost always the case in a first world country.

[organwerke]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1323905529' post='2351388']

Because the death penalty is just in some cases does not make it just in all cases. Like, for instance, when non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, which is almost always the case in a first world country.
[/quote]

let me say I don't completely agree with this. I do not think this is true, especially because most of the first world countries (in Europe), not only do not have death penalty but do not have life imprisonment anymore. What I find odd is that from Europe people usually criticize US because they are the only developped country that still has the death penalty, but on the other hand they are quite on the opposite side and in fact many persons here start to regret death penalty.
I think that a perfect law system cannot exist and this is why those who do not have death penalty regret it and those who have would likle to abolish it...

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1323905529' post='2351388']

Because the death penalty is just in some cases does not make it just in all cases. Like, for instance, when non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, which is almost always the case in a first world country.
[/quote]


I cannot except that premise. The state cannot execute someone primarily because of crimes they MAY commit, that would be a grave injustice. Nor can the State execute someone primarily because there is simply not enough good prisons, that would also be a grave injustice. Nor are these two reasons primary justifications in Sacred Tradition. Secondary yes, but not primary, and not required.

The primary purpose of all punishment is retributive.* Whether a child rapist and murderer is living in the 12th century with few good prisons or in the 21st with thousands of good prisons. The passage of time has no real effect on the offense of raping and murdering a child. A child's has the same worth in any age. The act of raping and murdering a child carries the same weight of wickedness. Nor does the passage of time make man any less fallen. So long as man is fallen and man commits murder there will always be need of Capital Punishment for the sack of justice. No matter how many "safe" prisons exist. The punishment should fit the crime, as long as sin tempts man there will be acts of murder where the only punishment equal to murdering and robing a innocent person's life is the life of the murderer who by his wicked act forfeits his right to life.


[size=3]*Evangelium Vitae, supra note 73, 56; 1997 CCC, 2266, and 2,000 plus years of Sacred Tradition. [/size]

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1323993706' post='2351849']


I cannot except that premise. The state cannot execute someone primarily because of crimes they MAY commit, that would be a grave injustice. Nor can the State execute someone primarily because there is simply not enough good prisons, that would also be a grave injustice. Nor are these two reasons primary justifications in Sacred Tradition. Secondary yes, but not primary, and not required.

The primary purpose of all punishment is retributive.* Whether a child rapist and murderer is living in the 12th century with few good prisons or in the 21st with thousands of good prisons. The passage of time has no real effect on the offense of raping and murdering a child. A child's has the same worth in any age. The act of raping and murdering a child carries the same weight of wickedness. Nor does the passage of time make man any less fallen. So long as man is fallen and man commits murder there will always be need of Capital Punishment for the sack of justice. No matter how many "safe" prisons exist. The punishment should fit the crime, as long as sin tempts man there will be acts of murder where the only punishment equal to murdering and robing a innocent person's life is the life of the murderer who by his wicked act forfeits his right to life.
[/quote]
I have an issue with the modern State being granted the same authority that God does to mete out capital punishment.
[size=1](Oh man, I feel like Sternhauser)[/size]

[size=1][size=4]Aside from that, I'm still going to stick by the Catechism and our past couple of Popes, because I am not into archaeologism. [/size][/size]