Pope Declares Death Penalty Inadmissible in All Cases

[Guest]

I can agree happily to disagree, KoC  

 I hold to what Jesus has said and The Church's deeper "dedication to the dignity of the human person and the common good of society".  As far as St Paul is concerned (I am an ardent fan of St Paul), I do not disagree with him since human authority ordained by God is also bound by The Commandments of God and the New Commandment of Jesus.

Catholic Answers Magazine: "Some people are tempted to think it is a simple reversal or rejection of traditional Catholic teaching. To see why this is not the case, let’s consider both the traditional and contemporary Catholic teaching in greater detail. ................edit - there is a considerable body of text - see link below.............

..................In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that both defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices. This teaching does not reverse any previous Church teaching, since no previous Church teaching had addressed the question of the relationship among the various purposes of punishment in the case of the death penalty. The contemporary Catholic teaching on the death penalty is not a simple rejection of traditional Catholic teaching on the topic, but it does substantially deepen the Church’s perennial dedication to the dignity of the human person and the common good of society. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty

Et cum spiritu tuo

[MIKolbe]

7 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

The Church doesn't change her teachings.

not exactly true...

Development of her teachings does happen, and development is a type of change.  Perhaps a little pedantic (LOL) on my end, but I understand the "change" you are meaning.

 

[linate]

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

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

In his apostolic constitution, Horrendum illud scelus, Pope St. Pius V even decreed that actively homosexual clerics were to be stripped of their office and handed over to the civil authorities, who at that time held sodomy as a capital offense. He wrote: “We determine that clerics guilty of this execrable crime are to be quite gravely punished, so that whoever does not abhor the ruination of the soul, the avenging secular sword of civil laws will certainly deter.”

An apostolic constitution (Latin: constitutio apostolica) is the highest level of decree issued by the Pope.[1]  By their nature, apostolic constitutions are addressed to the public. Generic constitutions use the title apostolic constitution and treat on solemn matters of the church, such as the promulgation of laws or definitive teachings. The forms dogmatic constitution and pastoral constitution are titles sometimes used to be more descriptive as to the document's purpose.

[catholicinsd]

As she lay bleeding to death, the martyr Maria Goretti forgave her attacker, Alessandro Serenelli.  Her mother, Assunta Carlini Goretti, also forgave Mr. Serenelli. Mrs. Goretti even welcomed him into her home. 

[Guest]

"I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you." (John Ch16)

[Peace]

On 8/6/2018 at 11:55 PM, KnightofChrist said:

The Church doesn't change her teachings. Or did not until now. Before this announcement there was room for disagreement on Capital punishment, Pope Benedict XVI said so anyway. Now, in just a few days I'm not really Catholic anymore for believing what the Church previously taught, by Trent, previous Popes, Doctors, Saint etc that "the PRIMARY effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense" and that safety of society was secondary and that teaching isn't Catholic anymore. I still believe the primary effect of capital punishment is to redress (revenge by the lawful state) the disorder caused by the offense (ie rape/murder). I'm sorry I'm not Catholic enough for some of you guys, and that my belief in what the Church always taught, until now at least, is just my opinion. This is why I don't post here much, you guys can be against capital punishment but I'm not going to say you're a fake Catholic for doing so. You can hold that belief and be a good Catholic. 

Oh please spare us the woe is me I am the victim routine. Your views are subject to criticism just like everyone else.

[Peace]

On 8/7/2018 at 1:22 AM, KnightofChrist said:

Again, Pope John Paul II was clearly concerned with secondary reasons of capital punishment, public safety, he is silent and does not address the primary effect of capital punishment which is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

Do you think that Pope John Paul II somehow forgot about the retributive aspect of punishment? That is a laughable idea.

In the paragraph immediately preceding the paragraph that directly addresses the death penalty, his Catechism states: "Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party."

So your statement is rank nonsense.

On 8/7/2018 at 1:22 AM, KnightofChrist said:

I don't believe people should be executed based on mistly on secondary justifications. But primarily on the actual offense.  Punishing someone mostly for crimes they MAY commit rather than primarily for crimes committed is to me unjust.

This is also rank nonsense. The Catechism does not teach or suggest anywhere that a person should be punished primarily for crimes that he may commit.

And the statement that "Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense" does not conflict with the other portions of the catechism that address the death penalty directly. This is where you are in error.

On 8/7/2018 at 1:22 AM, KnightofChrist said:

The state acts as a revenger on behalf of God, God has given the State the power of the sword, to punish and even put to death evil doers. This is part of the Deposit of Faith. No one, save God Himself, can change it. Until He comes again and does so I will believe the state can put evil doers to death, justly, primarily for the crimes committed because that is what the Church has always taught.

So sayeth Pope KnightofChrist I, infallible interpreter of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Until God returns to the Earth I will not change my opinion? No matter how many other living bishops of the church may disagree with you, you will stand steadfast in this opinion? That strikes me as rather arrogant. Rather prideful. What makes you think that you are so much more knowledgeable about the current application of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, than the people who received a Sacrament from God giving them authority to teach?

On 8/7/2018 at 3:28 AM, KnightofChrist said:

" Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment- is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord."

"The murderer is the worst enemy of his species, and consequently of nature. To the utmost of his power he destroys the universal work of God by the destruction of man, since God declares that He created all things for man's sake. Nay, as it is forbidden in Genesis to take human life, because God created man to his own image and likeness, he who makes away with God's image offers great injury to God, and almost seems to lay violent hands on God Himself !"

The statements that you quote above indicate that retribution is not the only factor that should be considered when deciding a punishment.

On 8/7/2018 at 3:28 AM, KnightofChrist said:

=====

"If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture." — Avery Cardinal Dulles 

https://zenit.org/articles/cardinal-dulles-counters-portrayal-of-his-views-on-death-penalty/

When contacted by ZENIT, Cardinal Dulles clarified his position in his April article.

“In my First Things article of April 2001 and several subsequent talks,” said the theologian, “I have made two principal points: first, that the death penalty is not a violation of the right to life of a person who has committed a deliberate and heinous crime; second, that, given the current situation in countries like the United States, it is generally undesirable to impose the death penalty.”

“The first of these theses is a reaffirmation of Scripture and long-standing tradition; the second is a prudential application of the principles, dependent on contingent circumstances,” the cardinal stated.

“Pope John Paul II and the bishops, in my opinion, have never said that the death penalty is unjust in principle or that it is a violation of the criminal´s right to life,” he said. “But it is their considered opinion that the death penalty should be applied only in rare and extreme cases.”

“I support their judgment for a variety of reasons which I have spelled out elsewhere,” Cardinal Dulles added. “Among them would be the likelihood of miscarriages of justice, the difficulty of assessing the personal guilt of the offender, and the danger of fostering a mentality of vindictiveness, which would be contrary to the teaching of the Gospel.”

He continued: “They also fear that the frequent use of the death penalty may lead to disregard for the value of human life. If the Pope and the bishops were denying that the state ever had the right to inflict the death penalty, they would be outside the Catholic mainstream, but I do not understand them as doing so.”

[KnightofChrist]

42 minutes ago, Peace said:

Oh please spare us the woe is me I am the victim routine. Your views are subject to criticism just like everyone else.

If we could have just a discussion about the actual topic rather than inserting little jabs at one another I would have responded to you and Josh. Josh questioned by faith, you make it far too personal. I don't care for either style of discussion so I will not bother to respond further. I replied to BarbaraTherese because she has been objective and respectful.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

If we could have just a discussion about the actual topic rather than inserting little jabs at one another I would have responded to you and Josh. Josh questioned by faith, you make it far too personal. I don't care for either style of discussion so I will not bother to respond further. I replied to BarbaraTherese because she has been objective and respectful. 

Whether or not you choose to respond is your own business, but you most certainly did try to play the victim card in that post.

And as far as being respectful, yes, that would also be more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. So I will try to do a better job of that.

[Guest]

I have been watching documentaries on men who have been on death row for many years and have been subsequently released as innocent after further investigations.  One comment really got to me: "Should systems as incompetent as these be allowed to execute people?"  And another was "The reverse is unthinkable" (that an innocent person is executed).

Most all of the men in the documentary who had sat on death row for years had their whole life in ruins.

Edited August 13, 2018 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Saint John-Paul II
Pope from 1978 to 2005
Encyclical “ Dives in misericordia ” ch. 7, §14 

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30111980_dives-in-misericordia.html

 

"Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant"

Paul VI more than once indicated the civilization of love" as the goal towards which all efforts in the cultural and social fields as well as in the economic and political fields should tend. it must be added that this good will never be reached if in our thinking and acting concerning the vast and complex spheres of human society we stop at the criterion of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Ex 21:24; Mt 5:38) and do not try to transform it in its essence, by complementing it with another spirit. Certainly, the Second Vatican Council also leads us in this direction, when it speaks repeatedly of the need to make the world more human,(GS 40) and says that the realization of this task is precisely the mission of the Church in the modern world. Society can become ever more human only if we introduce into the many-sided setting of interpersonal and social relationships, not merely justice, but also that "merciful love" which constitutes the messianic message of the Gospel.

Society can become "ever more human" only when we introduce into all the mutual relationships which form its moral aspect the moment of forgiveness, which is so much of the essence of the Gospel. Forgiveness demonstrates the presence in the world of the love which is more powerful than sin. Forgiveness is also the fundamental condition for reconciliation, not only in the relationship of God with man, but also in relationships between people. A world from which forgiveness was eliminated would be nothing but a world of cold and unfeeling justice, in the name of which each person would claim his or her own rights vis-a- vis others...

For this reason, the Church must consider it one of her principal duties-at every stage of history and especially in our modern age-to proclaim and to introduce into life the mystery of mercy, supremely revealed in Jesus Christ.

(From Daily Gospel.org)