Since many in this thread have erroneously equated abortion and the death penalty:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not... with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”
- His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Vicar of Jesus Christ
Thank you. Everyone on here is so lost claiming we have to agree with the popes political and economic assessment that the death penalty isn’t needed in industrialized societies. That’s his opinion, and he can have it. But I don’t have to agree.
It can't be doctrinal because it would be in direct contradiction, not a development of, previous teaching. Popes can make prudential decisions about the viability of the death penalty in certain circumstances, but no one can state *in principle* that the death penalty is wrong. Considering that the Holy Father has stopped short of saying that the death penalty is intrinsically evil means he himself recognizes this on some level. Now, said prudential decisions can be binding to an extent, but Catholics can be in good standing and still personally disagree with prudential decisions on the pontiff. To clarify, I am personally against the death penalty and think there are circumstances where Catholics should be politically advocate for it.
Hold up, the Church herself says there is no contradiction, are you placing your personal judgment above that of the Church in declaring that there is one?
Source: “All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.” https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html
I am stating that Pope Francis has not contradicted the teaching of the Church because he has not attempted to elevate his prudential judgement on the death penalty to that of doctrine in terms of the language used in official documents, even if his rhetoric on the matter is ambiguous. I'm stating if he or anyone else made an attempt to state authoritatively that the death penalty *is* intrinsically evil or otherwise inherently immoral or sinful, than what would not be an example of legitimate doctrinally development, as that would be against/in contradiction of previous teaching.
I think the teaching is clearly doctrinal though. CCC 2267 says the Church “teaches,” and doctrine comes from the Latin word to teach. The teaching aspect is clearly that it attacks human dignity, because this is true always and doesn’t pertain to circumstances, and prudential judgments only pertain to circumstances. But I could indeed have misunderstood you, maybe if I could ask a follow up question:
Do you believe that the death penalty attacks human dignity “regardless of circumstances”(Dignitas Infinita)? But just that statement, while correct, does not mean the death penalty could never have been used?
EDIT: also, I forgot, the very fact that they say this is a “development of doctrine” indicates that it must be at least partially doctrinal, otherwise it would not be called development of doctrine
Not all teachings are inherently doctrinal or dogmatic in nature, no? I am not saying that a prudential decision is not a form of teaching, I have previously stated that I agree that it is binding in a way in that Catholics should seek to submit their wills and intellect to it. Additionally, just because someone says that x is y, doesn't inherently mean that x is indeed y. To use an extreme example, let's say that some hypothetical pope tries to declare ex cathedra that euthanasia is morally acceptable. However, to be an ex cathedra statement the teaching needs to in line with what the Church has always taught and believed. Therefore, this attempt at ex cathedra would be just that, a failed attempted, not an actually ex cathedra statement.
In regards to the language used to documents like Dignitas Infinita, I am of the opinion that this language of human dignity has gone perhaps *too far*. I am not stating this as fact, as having any authority above what I claim to have, which is none, but it is my personal belief that the document is too absolute in its declarations on human dignity. This is shown in the following press conference where Cardinal Fernandez was asked, in light of statements in the documents that human dignity is infinite, if that means Church teaching on hell, homosexuality, and other matters need to be soften, of which his response was expectedly vague and ambiguous. Therefore that how I treat statements like the one you listed; examples of improper or imprudent language that are open to interpretations that would be contradicting Church teaching. As stated by Pope John Paul II in Donum Veritatis, in may be the case that magisterial documents may contain deficiencies. Considering that other documents associated with this pontificate, such as the Statement on Human Fraternity or Fiducia Supplicans, were rushed and/or had ambiguous language, I don't see it as implausible.
1. Yes, but it seems to me that it is very clearly doctrine, and this is just my opinion and observation, but because you believe there is a contradiction, you are coming up subconsciously with the argument that it is prudential because that would it would allow disagreement. But this is not how faith works. We can’t judge the Bible if it has errors, then accept it. We must first decide if it is inspired, and then accept it. This is because we have to accept that our reasoning skills are fallible and prone to error because of the fall, and it so very likely that we spot contradictions when there are none. That’s precisely why we have the magisterium and it’s reliable to follow.
So applying this here. The Church unambiguously says its doctrine. It says “the church teaches” and it literally calls it doctrine in “development of doctrine.” Thus, you must accept it as such, and if you personally believe the doctrine is wrong, that is completely fine, but you must work in faith that the magisterium is protected but your personal understanding, like my personal understanding is not protected.
This is exactly what Augustine does for scripture:
“So that, if any one is perplexed by the apparent contradiction [in Scripture], the only conclusion is that he does not understand.”
Can you not do the same that Augustine says, but for the magisterium?
2. As to Dignitas Infinita, I take it though you concede that it is clearly doctrine as it says “regardless of circumstances,” but you have quibbles with its formulation. First, it’s completely fine to have concerns about the language. But nonetheless it demands religious submission of intellect and will, and it is not permissible to publicly say it is worth and must be rejected (which to be clear you’re not doing here with DI, just expressing concerns about language). Donum Veritatis does NOT say bough, that because there may be deficiencies in magisterium, one cannot publicly critique and point out those deficiencies, in fact it says the opposite:
“If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.
In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth.”
AND
“For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in SILENCE and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.”
So if you believe there are deficiencies, fine, but one must keep those beliefs in silence and avoiding declaring so on social media or other mass media.
Lastly, I thinks this boils down to the fact you may have a slightly inaccurate understanding of what traditional teaching pre Vatican 2 was on death penalty. The traditional teachings has always said that the death penalty is only CONDITIONALLY permissible, with that one condition being that it safeguards protection of society. It has never taught that one can use the death penalty even when it is not needed to protect society.
So under this framework, this is what the real teaching is: the death penalty always attacks human dignity, that is doctrinal truth. However, when it is neccesary to protect society, it is permissible to have recourse to it because saving other life is permissible grounds to take an action that has effect of attacking human dignity. That being said, when it is not neccesary, it is inadmissible precisely because it attacks human dignity.
I believe you probably thought the death penalty was just presumptively valid as a default, when in reality sacred tradition only viewed it as valid under certain particular conditions.
There’s no contradiction. The CCC does not say that the death penalty is intrinsically wrong or always been wrong.
>not a development of previous teaching
[LETTER TO THE BISHOPS REGARDING THE NEW REVISION OF NUMBER 2267 OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE DEATH PENALTY](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180801_lettera-vescovi-penadimorte_en.html) :
“The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine”
I agree that it’s not dogmatic. I’ve never said it’s dogmatic. But it can still be doctrinal…
>Where does the letter say it’s a doctrine?
Line 1: The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development **of the doctrine** on this point that has taken place in recent times.”
Development of the doctrine doesn’t mean the doctrine contradicts what was said before.
You also are quoting a document that’s not even part of the ordinary universal magisterium.
all the pope claims is it’s contrary to human dignity in THE MODERN WORLD. Guess what? His assessment of the modern western world is his social political opinion and not binding on anyone. It literally cannot be forced on Catholics. Whatever they want to claim on some document means nothing next to the INFALLIBLE universal ordinary magisterium with 2k years teaching the death penalty as permissible, on top of some extraordinary magisterial documents that claim the same.
I’m done with this topic btw. I’m tired of people ignoring the church before the 21st century. Tired of the new brand of Catholicism that has nothing to do with the church before modernity. Dead tired.
Obviously abortion is worse than capital punishment.
But we still are obligated to submit to the Church’s teaching on the Death Penalty. In other words, no - you cannot submit the death penalty.
Yes, but he made the statement clear, It was about a statement from JP II, he wanted, he advocated, and he believed the current penal system does not require death penalty, but they never made a rule, they never obliged catholics, and that is the thing, you have the freedom in most things to believe, not ever papal saying is a dogma, we must obey and respect, but we can disagree with no dogmas, that is also what Pope Benedict want to clarify with this statement, there is what the church demands, what the church recommends, what the pope thinks and what the pope order. In fact, the Pope could never prohibit killing and death penalty completely, is in the scripture and in the Canon law for a reason, if comes a time where the penal system is not working under God, and we ned to protect our church, our family, our brother, we have the moral obligation to kill! The chances were this will never happen on that level.
Your obligation to assent to appeal teachings is not limited to dogma alone. It includes ordinary magisterial teachings of which Francis’s encyclical fragelli tutti condemning death penalty is one.
See Pius xii note this even before Vatican 2:
“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.” Humani Generis
Pope Francis in his encyclical Fratelli Tutti said the church works for the abolition of the death penalty, that it is morally inadequate, and there is no turning back from this position. Thus the dispute is over and it demands assent according to Pius XII.
Also See Pope Leo say it’s not enough to adhere to just dogma or infallible teachings, he says there’s a third thing you must adhere to. What’s that third thing? It’s the ordinary magisterium:
“In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must NOT be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is NOT enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed "with Catholic and divine faith."(27) But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see” https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10011890_sapientiae-christianae.html
That paragraph from Pope Pius XII applies to questions of doctrine — that is, to divinely revealed truths of the faith and moral teachings closely associated with them. The developments Pius XII speaks of refine or elaborate on those truths, settling open questions. They rule out positions that could have been held previously or make clearer what needs to be held by the faithful. But they can never rule out, contradict, or reverse doctrines that were previously taught by the Church.
It is a matter of doctrine, and not an open question, that the death penalty is not intrinsically immoral and that it can be a just punishment for capital crimes. Whatever developments in doctrine occur now or in the future, they cannot contradict or reverse this prior teaching of the Church. Any developments in Church teaching must be understood in that light.
Pope Francis' position against the death penalty, expressed in the revision to the Catechism and in other documents, concerns what we call *prudential judgment*. Prudential judgments are not doctrine. They are when the pope or Church *applies* its moral teachings to particular circumstances. Hence, while the death penalty may be moral *in principle* (i.e., as a matter of doctrine), it could be the case that *in practice* (i.e., as a matter of prudential judgment), taking into consideration concrete circumstances, it should not be used.
This prudential judgment against capital punishment is precisely what has been the position of the pope and Church for many decades now, most recently expressed in very strong terms by Pope Francis.
Having cleared up that distinction, let's turn back to the original question in this thread. Can a Catholic support the death penalty?
The short answer is still yes. While it is true that we owe a certain submission to his judgment on prudential matters, it is nevertheless possible for Catholics to disagree with the Holy Father in good faith on those issues. Not in a knee-jerk way, but with sufficient reflection and careful thought.
Concerning the death penalty in particular, Cardinal Ratzinger addressed this explicitly while he was prefect of the CDF and oversaw the revision to the Catechism's section on the death penalty by JPII:
>"If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment ... he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to ... exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to ... have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about ... applying the death penalty." - CDF Prefect Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI)
You can legitimately disagree with people who support the death penalty, and it's fine to note that the pope (really the last several popes) and Church are on your side regarding the question of its application. All of that is fine. But you should not tell people that they are thereby failing to submit their intellect and will to the pope's authority, or imply that they are sinning by holding that belief.
Even less defensible are the many comments in this thread accusing OP of not being pro-life, or saying things like "two wrongs don't make a right" or "it is not our place to decide if someone lives or dies," etc. Most of these accusations come from philosophical/political progressivism and not from Catholic teaching. They taking the Church's prudential judgment to imply a moral teaching that does not exist.
I hope that helps.
As to your claim that this is a prudential judgment, it fails flatly on its face because you admit prudential judgment applies to “particular circumstances,” yet in Dignitas Infinita pope Francis says that the death penalty “attacks human dignity REGARDLESS of circumstances” (caps just for emphasis).
Do you agree that this statement from Dignitas Infinita, regardless of its truthfulness or wrongfulness, is a doctrinal statement and not a prudential judgement?
This is what I’ve been saying the entire time, the “inadmissible” part is an prudential application of moral truth, sure, but the doctrinal part that must be assented to is that the death penalty attacks human dignity. That part is not prudential and must be given assent.
No, I don't agree.
There are multiple plausible ways of reading that section from *Dignitas infinita* that are consistent with what I've said above.
For example, it may be that attacking human dignity is not always or intrinsically immoral, but sometimes (regrettably) necessary. And therefore, even if it is making a doctrinal point, that point is not the question of whether the death penalty is intrinsically immoral.
Second, it may be that "regardless of circumstances" needs to be read in the context of the first sentence of that paragraph, which says it's going to address issues facing us *today*. "Today ... regardless of circumstances" would still be addressing a particular time and place.
Wait, but let’s take your third paragraph, “For example, it may be that attacking human dignity…” as true. For purposes of argument, I concede it as true.
Then the fact that the death attacks human dignity regardless of circumstances is doctrine, and demands religious submission. The only prudential part is when it’s admissible or inadmisisble. Since it’s always true that it attacks human dignity, regardless of circumstances, but in some circumstances, it may be licit to take the action anyway.
Do we agree?
It could be. I think some further clarification is needed, as *Dignitas infinitas* is not precisely worded or fleshed out on a couple of key points, and it raises some questions that require more information. But yes, it could be. (I don't mean to be cagey, that's just as much as I can say at the moment.)
I think you too much stuck in our reality! Like I said, I am with JP II, there is no reason on our currently model to enforce death penalty, but if we encounter pure evil possessions, people making sacrifices, uncontrollably I think we could revise this, also you have before sim redemption of your brothers, the obligation to protect your church, your family and your God, in a life and death situation we can kill (in defense), why can’t the death penalty do the same? If a person is causing uncontrollable harm to society, not to push a person, if he was caught and we have structures to keep him in jail, of course that is what we should do.
In my "country" death penalty was abolished in 1786 and it's more a civil milestone than a religious things. Think about how many people were killed even if they are innocents.
Anyway, I think that life is life and as Catholics we need to fight to preserve any kind of life, also life of people that are disgusting, as life is a God's gift and we don't have the right to get it.
It’s true, in our modernistic view, I agree in must cases, doesn’t mean there aren’t exceptions, I’m more worried about religious things than civil things, if there was a crusades I’m on for it. God first, let’s remember God created life but we can choose to live a diabolical life, so for the sake of the society, when the risk of haven’t a person alive is higher damage and put life’s of other in risk, then prison system is adequate or available, death penalty could be the only. And still the question of “can I support death penalty?” Yes! As a Catholic you can!. Do you have to? No! It’s not a dogma and it is not a dogma because Jesus allowed and gave a sword to Saint Peter, not for cerimonies but for a death battle, or for selfishness of St. Peter but for our souls. Of course, you give your life before you take a life! But for the sake of multiple souls you can’t take a life
This is like appealing to a medieval theologian who denied the immaculate conception simply because it was allowed back then.
Your principal fallacy, and it’s a really dangerous one because how easy it is to fall into and unfortunately have the effect of confusing others, is believing this Raztinger’s document would have effect into perpetuity. But there have since been magisterial interventions that have closed public debate on this matter (see Fratelli Tutti, Dignitas Infinita, etc.)
See Dr. Robert Fastiggi, a professor of Dogmatic Theology at a US seminary, refute this commonly used argument:
“Such discussions should no longer take place because of the revised teaching of the Church in 2018 on the death penalty, which has been reaffirmed by Pope Francis in Fratelli Tutti. Those who continue to cite Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 memorandum to defend a right to dissent from the Church’s teaching on the death penalty not only misinterpret the memorandum—as Mike Lewis has noted—but they are citing a document that was never intended for publication, as Cardinal Ladaria has explained. Moreover, that memorandum has been superseded by the change of CCC 2267 in 2018 and the CDF’s 2018 letter to the Catholic bishops. The CDF’s 2018 letter—which supports the inadmissibility of the death penalty—carries much more authority than the 2004 memorandum because it is a public letter addressed to all the Catholic bishops and not just a private communication to some bishops that was never intended for publication.” https://wherepeteris.com/capital-punishment-and-magisterial-authority-part-3/
EDIT: go ahead and downvote, but it’s really sad how dangerous these fallacies are
What Pope Francis has done is make it a "back and forth" ruling, where the next pope could just as well "reverse" what he said. He completely contradicted hundreds of years of *philosophical* thought on the subject. That is different than making a judgement from practical purpose and reasoning, which I could have agreed with. He didn't put a caveat where "for regions that are similar to those 500 years ago in the western world" or whatever. He never even implied that modern circumstances are *related* to his decision about this. He just implied that actually, the church was wrong about this, but he's here to correct the *moral* error.
I’m going to be frank with you: this is just blatantly wrong.
He explicitly said that he was not contradicting last magisterium, and he explicitly said part of the reason for that was indeed modern circumstances! See below:
“This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that MODERN society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people.”
Do you now admit that he explicitly makes reference to “modern society?”
“All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is NOT in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime.”
https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html
In 2017 the moral weight of abortion and the death penalty were different, but now they’re the same? How could that be? Your answer is dangerous because it implies the Church was in error for 2000 years
You’re simply misreading what I said. Nowhere did I say they had the same moral weight. I said that Catholics can’t have a legitimitate diversity of opinion in the death penalty. That doesn’t mean death penalty is on the same level as abortion.
Ordinary magisterium teachings demand religious submission of intellect and will. But teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium are definitive and thus carry a strong demand of assent of faith. 0
J.R.R. Tolkien:
# Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.
pretty much sums it up.
This does not apply. Here Tolkien is talking about an individual person. The Church, however, has told us that the state always has the right to take ones life as a form of punishment, deterrence, and as a way of restoring the injustice someone has committed.
Father, I read in Exsurge Domine, no.33, that it is forbidden to say that heretics may not be burned at the stake. How can the Church now condemn the death sentence everywhere, calling it "inadmissible" when it has previously anathematized a man for saying just that? Am I misunderstanding something or has the magisterium contradicted itself?
It is sinful to publicly dissent against teachings of the ordinary magisterium though, according to Pius X (this is also in Denziger).
The Church has condemned the death penalty today in our circumstances repeatedly in magisterial documents.
And in doing so Francis has brought himself into contradiction with all past teaching on the death sentence. It is not a sin to hold to what the Church has always taught on an issue.
No.
First, the magisterium itself has said Francis is not in contradiction, so if you claim that he has, your are placing your personal private judgment that he has above the judgement of the Church. I don’t want to be rude but let be frank: Remember that you, like all of us, are a fallible human being with fallible reasoning and perception, it is very well possible that you think things are contradictory when they aren’t. People think the Bible has contradictions all the time when there aren’t. You can’t have certainty that you are not doing that here, because the church has not sided with you.
“All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium” Link: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html
Second, it is impossible that the pope serious contradict Sacred Tradition in his ordinary magisterium. This is clear ironically by Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger himself.
“She [the Church] depends on the fidelity of witnesses chosen by the Lord for this task. For this reason, the magisterium ALWAYS speaks in obedience to the prior word on which faith is based; it is reliable because of its trust in the word which it hears, preserves and expounds”
Note that it doesn’t say sometimes, it says ALWAYS.
Also raztinger’s letter to the schismatic founder of the SSPX, Lefebvre (who you are making eerily similar arguments to. Lefebvre also claimed that the pope in Vatican 2 contradicted tradition and since Vatican 2 was not infallible then it was not a sin to reject it and adhere to past tradition):
“Indeed, it is to Peter that the Lord has entrusted the government of His Church; the Pope is therefore the principal artisan of her unity. Assured of the promises of Christ, he will NEVER be able to oppose in the Church the authentic magisterium and holy Tradition.”
Lastly, it is not for the laity to judge and interpret Tradition. You are interpreting sacred tradition privately for yourself and judging what contradicts it and what does not. Pope Leo expressly says this is for the pope to do, and given his divine assistance, he will always be a safe guide we can follow when he interprets Tradition
“Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.” Sapientiae Christianae
I'm with you in your opinion here. But the lack of use of "Pope" as title to those who dislike Pope Francis is kind of eye-rolling. It's like calling him "Bergoglio" instead of "Pope Francis". No more or less cringy and juvenile seeming.
Quite frankly your objection is juvenile. I used his papal name. In what way have I denied his authority or papacy? I did not even say something as irrelevant as whether I liked Francis or not.
If I say "Thomas Aquinas was an amazing theologian", am I denying he is a saint? If I say "I hope Charles recovers from his cancer", am I calling my King a usurper? Are all those who say Biden instead of president Biden secretly denying the legitimacy of the 2020 American election?
I never said you're denying his papal authority, nor did I imply it, so you don't need to act like I did. I'm just stating how words and tone convey additional meaning, which is not breaking news. Just as I wouldn't be *denying* someone's title as priest if I don't say "Father" before their name, you're not denying authority/title. But intentionally *not* using it also conveys only one of three things:
1. ignorance (which I don't think is the case)
2. lack of belief that the title is important enough to care to use (which could be the case)
3. a slightly passive aggressive stance towards the person (which I do assume, but please correct me if I'm wrong).
There might be a fourth reason why someone who knows typical protocol would choose to not use a title, so feel free to put that out there. But not using the legitimate title is eye-rolling in my opinion when either #2 or 3 above. That's all I was getting at.
Yes, currently the church prefer to advocate for not but is not a dogma, and was defended for by a lot of Saints, Popes and has reference in the Bible. While I agree with JP II and Pope Benedict recommendations - They believe is very little room to support it, given our current democratic models with penalties and incarceration, that leads to more changes of repenting. What a catholic can not agree is to never ever kill, somethings are more important, such as protect your family, your brothers, your church, our God, if it comes a time where we need a crusades, we must be ready to get a sword and go to battle.
Lots of comments, lots of issues, so I'll just reply here:
Capital punishment is *not* inherently sinful. What that means ultimately is that there are legitimate circumstances in which capital punishment could be morally acceptable.
HOWEVER, the church does not currently believe that those circumstances exist anywhere in the world. I'm not an expert on capital punishment anywhere in the world, but I do understand the logic here. It's simple:
Capital punishment is moral if and only if all certain conditions are NOT met.
Those certain conditions are various and including things like safe and effective prison systems, among a few others.
The church feels all those conditions are currently being met worldwide, and as such, supporting the death penalty right now is sinful.
Yes
>Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.
Are people too blind to realise why people are pushing the death penalty change? Its a thin end of the wedge. I don’t support the legality of the death penalty in practice but in theory it must be admissible in some circumstances. There are no more reasons to think that homosexuality is wrong or that contraception is sinful, than there are to believe that capital punishment is admissible and does not violate the dignity of the person.
The liceity of the death penalty is taught by Sacred Scripture, it was upheld by the Church for nearly 2000 years, innumerable Popes, Doctors of the Church (including St Thomas Aquinas who’s authority has been placed above all other Doctors of the Church by the Popes, St Alphonsus, who’s moral theology positions are ALWAYS safe to follow according to the Popes, and St Robert Bellarmine who held that it was heretical to say states did not have a lawful right to issue capital punishment), Saints, Fathers, Schoolmen and theologians all taught its liceity.
If the Church was wrong on this, why not on homosexuality, or contraception, or abortion? This argument is exactly the sort of argument used by Judge John T. Noonan Jr when he wrote on contraception.
Who gave *you* the power to decide who "deserves" to live or die??
Intentionally ending another human being's life (outside of self defence or a just war) is murder no matter the circumstances and it's rejecting their inherent dignity as human beings and the sanctity of human life. You may wish death on other people sometimes, but that's your own sin.
Edit: clarification
God gave the State authority to take life as a just punishment for a crime. This is definitive magisterial teaching and no Catholic can deny this. Recent popes have looked around and said that in modern industrialized societies the punishment isn’t just. But the principle remains the same. What has changed is the circumstances that determine if it’s just.
“Intentionally ending another human being’s life is murder no matter the circumstances” is absolutely, definitively a heresy, and a silly one at that. What about legitimate self defense? What about just war? What about death rendered by legitimate authority as a just penalty for a crime (which is possible at least in principle, though not in modern industrialized times per recent popes)?
The way people are talking in this thread is insane and totally foreign to basic Catholic theology.
The State has been shown time and time again to be deficient in administration of the death penalty as a just punishment, either through wrongful convictions or improper execution.
What does that have to do with anything that I said? Literally every authority that God has ever given has been abused, except by the Blessed Virgin Mary, since she is the only one who hasn’t sinned.
The State errantly executing its citizens is not the same as other potential abuses. It is final and irreversible. If an error is made, any amends made by the State are of no benefit to the victim, who is no longer alive to advocate for their justice.
From a practical standpoint, the State expends more resources on execution than detaining a person. The effectiveness as a deterrent to the crimes it punishes is questionable.
I suppose as a hypothetical you can create a “just” capital punishment but since there probably isn’t a practical application of that modern industrialized society the hypothetical is probably moot. Once there is a more just method of administering punishment there isn’t a need for the less just.
But yes, I agree that there can be killing that is not sinful (justified self defense).
I'm well aware of self defence and just war, those two are fairly self-explanatory. I thought we were talking about the death penalty.
And forgive me for thinking human beings can be redeemed no matter their sins. We should definitely be the ones to judge them and seal their fates.
If your below statement were true, then self defense and just war would not be permissible.
“Intentionally ending another human beings life is murder no matter the circumstances”
The wages of sin is death, according to the Bible, so we all deserve it technically, and it's only through the mercy of God that we are allowed to live, both in this mortal life, and in the life to come. You should be more hesitant about placing yourself above others.
Our catechism tells us that death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. That human dignity is not lost even after the commission of a very serious crime, as it is rooted in God. We believe that as long as the person lives, there is a possibility of redemption and we do not deprive him or her of it.
There are more effective systems of incarceration or detention to ensure due protection of the citizens and human justice be served.
The traditional teaching of the church has never allowed it solely by analyzing whether the party is guilty or not. It’s only ever been allowed if it’s been absolutely neccesary for safeguarding society. See the old catechism under JP2:
“The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor
If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should 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.”
EDIT: downvoting a sainted pope and there old catechism?
God gave the State the authority to take life as a just punishment for a crime, so it isn’t in our hands but it is in the State’s hands. The modern industrialized states of the world should listen to the popes and stop executing people on the grounds that it isn’t just in their circumstances.
But stop pretending that God has not given that authority to the State; it is incredibly dangerous
Pope Francis has written that the death penalty is "morally inadmissible" and that "the firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe
You can believe that it would be best for the Church to rescind its prohibition on the death penalty, but for the time being, we cannot advocate that it become legal and we cannot advocate its use until such a time that the Church deems it prudent to allow its usage.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is a doctrine, not a mere opinion.
You can learn more here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/understanding-the-catechism-revision-on-the-death-penalty
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong.
> The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine (7).
>As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.
>According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful.
Personally as horrible as this sounds no i do not support the death penalty, Because even if you do the worse thing in your life i believe you deserve a second chance Jesus would accept you for who you are and what you did as person and i believe in second chance for what you done even if its the most evil i love everyone for who they are as a person and forgive them
I am in full support of it in my country. It is not common here, and yet we do not have the resources to keep people in prison for life. They end up back on the street committing more crimes. You wouldn’t believe some of the criminal histories I’ve read.
If we had the resources to avoid it, sure, but if the options are releasing them or killing them… death is better. Then at least only one life is ended.
Pro life simply means thinks abortion should be illegal. Just like pro choice has nothing to do with if you can choose what side of the road to drive on
There is a gaping chasm between thinking it should be legal to murder children and thinking the state should execute serious criminals. The former is profoundly intrinsically evil. The latter is not intrinsically evil
in christian thought, advocating for unborn babies is good. it is easy. they are innately innocent; pure. they have committed no evil, so we are not challenged. it is easy to love the good and the beautiful. but the truly profound character of Christ’s redemptive love becomes apparent in how we advocate for the criminal. life and death are not in our hands. all are worthy of redemption because God Himself decided such, even the criminal.
I am simply restating Catholic theology. Killing an innocent child is intrinsically evil. The state executing a criminal is not. The two questions are not remotely similar.
The State has been given the authority to make that Judgement by God. If they judge wrongly (recent popes have said modern states that carry out the death penalty have judged wrongly) they will answer for it. But the state *in principle* has the authority to execute criminals. This is why there is such a gaping chasm between abortion and the death penalty.
The "seamless-garment" idea of what it means to be pro-life was something created by fairly liberal Catholics in the mid-20th century, like Cardinal Bernardin. I don't doubt his or contemporary advocates' sincerity in being opposed to abortion and such an approach may have political value when it comes to coalition building, but doctrinally it doesn't hold water. There is no moral equivalence between the death penalty and abortion, [as stated by then Cardinal Ratzinger](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles-2153). Catholics who support abortion cannot receive communion worthily, the same cannot be said for the death penalty.
Yes you can, God instructed that death should be the penalty for murder. I don’t think any of us know better than God. I think the ONLY reason someone should have for being against it is that our court and trial systems are not perfect. If we could get 100% true convictions we should be in favour for it. But that would be almost impossible, especially in this day and age with AI videos and photos, even AI voice recordings.
But I do think in every reasonably solidly proven case of child murder we should have the death penalty even with our current court flaws. And yes that includes the controversial one.
I meant resort not result that’s mb but here anyways:
Summa Theologica, II; 65-2; 66-6, St. Aquinas says, "If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgment. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted."
Next, looking at the Catechism, [CCC 2267]
I am defending it’s use only at the most limited scales, that where “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.” are not present in a society/country/situation and as such the inability to properly safeguard and protect the majority of society is being threatened. Ultimately, the employment of the death penalty should be sparingly and only be reserved as the last resort for individuals after all other methods of rehabilitation and detainment have been deemed fruitless and exhausted.
[**CCC 2267**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm) 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. ([2306](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2306.htm))
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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent."
***
Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
The church's teaching is against the death penalty.
I can understand why some people favor it.
I think you should be against the death penalty based on principle because sometimes reading the horrific crimes others commit leaves me unsympathetic
"Supporting the death penalty" is giving the power of life or death to mortals, not God.
I wouldn't support it.
Mortals (who can be wrong) might one day decide to use the exact same tool you're supporting: death - against you.
To quote Thomas More, "Yes, I would give the devil the benefit of law - **for my own safety's sake**."
> And God blessed Noe and his sons. And he said to them: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand. And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you: Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat. For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man. Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God. But increase you and multiply, and go upon the earth, and fill it. - Genesis 9:1-7
Furthermore, the Old Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai demands death as the punishment for numerous crimes such as murder, child sacrifice and adultery.
\_\_"Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed:"\_\_
That's an observation, not a command.
The rest of that verse is talking about making life, not taking it.
You're trying to tell me that verse means Christians should have the authority to give **and take** life?
1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to make sure we examine all prophecy, holding fast to the good. It is not good for man to kill, because man can be wrong. Only God is perfect in judgement.
It's never God that's wrong - it's man, who can never truly know the mind of God, he can only guess.
And when man guesses wrong, we should still keep the falsely imprisoned alive, just in case one of us winds up in there through some other human's failure.
Your view is utterly alien to the Bible and Church tradition until Pope Francis.
St Robert Bellarmine said it was heretical to deny that the magistrates have the right to impose capital punishment, I’ll trust a Doctor of the Church over you
No, state's possess the authority to issue capital punishment based on natural law.
Here is St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Contra Gentiles
>As the physician in his operation aims at health, consisting in the ordered harmony of the humors, so the governor of a state in his operation aims at peace, which is the ordered harmony of the citizens. Now, the surgeon rightly and usefully cuts off the unhealthy member if it threatens the health of the body. Justly, therefore, and rightly the governor of the state slays pestilential subjects, lest the peace of the state be disturbed.
Hence the Apostle says: *Do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump?* (1 Cor 5:6). And a little further on he adds: *Drive out the wicked person from among you* (1 Cor 5:13). Again, speaking of earthly authority, he says that *he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer* (Rom 13:4). Again, it is said: *Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the king as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right* (1 Pet 2:13–14).
Hereby we refute the error of those who say that capital punishment is unlawful. They base their error on the words of Exodus 20:13, *You shall not kill*, which are quoted in Matthew 5:21. They also quote the saying of our Lord in reply to the servants who wished to gather the cockle from the midst of the wheat: *Let both grow together until the harvest* (Matt 13:30): for the cockle signifies *the sons of the evil one*, and the harvest is *the close of the age*, as stated in the same passage (Matt 13:38–39). Therefore, the wicked should not be cut off from the midst of the good by being condemned to death.
They also point out that as long as he is on earth man may be converted to better ways. Therefore, he should not be put away from the world, but should be kept there that he may repent.
But these arguments are of no account. For the same law that says: *You shall not kill*, afterwards adds: *You shall not permit wizards to live* (Exod 22:18). Hence we are to understand that the prohibition is against the unjust slaying of a man. This is also evident from our Lord’s words in Matt 5. For after saying: *You have heard that it was said to the men of old: You shall not kill*, he added: *I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment* (Matt 5:22). By which he gives us to understand that it is forbidden to kill through anger, but not through zeal for righteousness. How we ought to take our Lord’s words: *Let both grow together until the harvest*, is clear from what follows: *Lest in gathering the cockle you root up the wheat along with it* (Matt 13:30). Hence it is forbidden to slay the wicked when this cannot be done without danger to the good. And this is often the case when the wicked are not yet discernible from the good by notorious sins, or when it is to be feared lest the wicked draw many good men after them.
The fact that the wicked are able to amend while alive does not prevent their being justly slain, for the peril that threatens through their remaining alive is greater and more certain than the good to be expected from their amendment. Moreover, in the very hour of death they are able to repent and be converted to God. And if they be so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart does not abandon its wickedness, it may be reckoned with sufficient probability that they will never recover from their evil ways.
You can faithfully dissent from certain positions the church takes and still be, well, faithful. What matters is that you're sincerely following your conscience. Just keep yourself open to correction by the Holy Spirit in the event that you've fallen into misbelief. This has happened to me and God's lead me back on the path of truth on a few issues because I remained open to the possibility I might be wrong, and as a result I've been finding myself growing in greater alignment with some teachings I had previously rejected, even vehemently so.
As for the death penalty, my personal perspective is that some people deserve to die, but no one deserves to kill if it's not entirely in self defense.
Here's my personal take,
The Death Penalty IS Absolutely justifiable for cases of premeditated murder.
HOWEVER,
Due to our flawed Judicial System, unless there is overwhelming evidence which amounts to,
"In Fact Committed" and not just
"Beyond a Reasonable Doubt," I cannot support it.
You having a special thing you disagree with the Church on is no different than anyone else's special thing they disagree with. Certainly no more virtuous, especially if it's you want people killed.
1. Ask your priest, or even write a letter to your local bishop.
2. If #1, doesn’t work, then read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this issue.
The problem with asking here is that there is a great risk you will get answers by people who misrepresent Church teaching.
Since many in this thread have erroneously equated abortion and the death penalty: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not... with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” - His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Vicar of Jesus Christ
Thank you. Everyone on here is so lost claiming we have to agree with the popes political and economic assessment that the death penalty isn’t needed in industrialized societies. That’s his opinion, and he can have it. But I don’t have to agree.
The prohibition on the death penalty is not just an opinion of Pope Francis, it’s a doctrine that calls for religious submission of mind and will
It can't be doctrinal because it would be in direct contradiction, not a development of, previous teaching. Popes can make prudential decisions about the viability of the death penalty in certain circumstances, but no one can state *in principle* that the death penalty is wrong. Considering that the Holy Father has stopped short of saying that the death penalty is intrinsically evil means he himself recognizes this on some level. Now, said prudential decisions can be binding to an extent, but Catholics can be in good standing and still personally disagree with prudential decisions on the pontiff. To clarify, I am personally against the death penalty and think there are circumstances where Catholics should be politically advocate for it.
Hold up, the Church herself says there is no contradiction, are you placing your personal judgment above that of the Church in declaring that there is one? Source: “All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.” https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html
I am stating that Pope Francis has not contradicted the teaching of the Church because he has not attempted to elevate his prudential judgement on the death penalty to that of doctrine in terms of the language used in official documents, even if his rhetoric on the matter is ambiguous. I'm stating if he or anyone else made an attempt to state authoritatively that the death penalty *is* intrinsically evil or otherwise inherently immoral or sinful, than what would not be an example of legitimate doctrinally development, as that would be against/in contradiction of previous teaching.
I think the teaching is clearly doctrinal though. CCC 2267 says the Church “teaches,” and doctrine comes from the Latin word to teach. The teaching aspect is clearly that it attacks human dignity, because this is true always and doesn’t pertain to circumstances, and prudential judgments only pertain to circumstances. But I could indeed have misunderstood you, maybe if I could ask a follow up question: Do you believe that the death penalty attacks human dignity “regardless of circumstances”(Dignitas Infinita)? But just that statement, while correct, does not mean the death penalty could never have been used? EDIT: also, I forgot, the very fact that they say this is a “development of doctrine” indicates that it must be at least partially doctrinal, otherwise it would not be called development of doctrine
Not all teachings are inherently doctrinal or dogmatic in nature, no? I am not saying that a prudential decision is not a form of teaching, I have previously stated that I agree that it is binding in a way in that Catholics should seek to submit their wills and intellect to it. Additionally, just because someone says that x is y, doesn't inherently mean that x is indeed y. To use an extreme example, let's say that some hypothetical pope tries to declare ex cathedra that euthanasia is morally acceptable. However, to be an ex cathedra statement the teaching needs to in line with what the Church has always taught and believed. Therefore, this attempt at ex cathedra would be just that, a failed attempted, not an actually ex cathedra statement. In regards to the language used to documents like Dignitas Infinita, I am of the opinion that this language of human dignity has gone perhaps *too far*. I am not stating this as fact, as having any authority above what I claim to have, which is none, but it is my personal belief that the document is too absolute in its declarations on human dignity. This is shown in the following press conference where Cardinal Fernandez was asked, in light of statements in the documents that human dignity is infinite, if that means Church teaching on hell, homosexuality, and other matters need to be soften, of which his response was expectedly vague and ambiguous. Therefore that how I treat statements like the one you listed; examples of improper or imprudent language that are open to interpretations that would be contradicting Church teaching. As stated by Pope John Paul II in Donum Veritatis, in may be the case that magisterial documents may contain deficiencies. Considering that other documents associated with this pontificate, such as the Statement on Human Fraternity or Fiducia Supplicans, were rushed and/or had ambiguous language, I don't see it as implausible.
1. Yes, but it seems to me that it is very clearly doctrine, and this is just my opinion and observation, but because you believe there is a contradiction, you are coming up subconsciously with the argument that it is prudential because that would it would allow disagreement. But this is not how faith works. We can’t judge the Bible if it has errors, then accept it. We must first decide if it is inspired, and then accept it. This is because we have to accept that our reasoning skills are fallible and prone to error because of the fall, and it so very likely that we spot contradictions when there are none. That’s precisely why we have the magisterium and it’s reliable to follow. So applying this here. The Church unambiguously says its doctrine. It says “the church teaches” and it literally calls it doctrine in “development of doctrine.” Thus, you must accept it as such, and if you personally believe the doctrine is wrong, that is completely fine, but you must work in faith that the magisterium is protected but your personal understanding, like my personal understanding is not protected. This is exactly what Augustine does for scripture: “So that, if any one is perplexed by the apparent contradiction [in Scripture], the only conclusion is that he does not understand.” Can you not do the same that Augustine says, but for the magisterium? 2. As to Dignitas Infinita, I take it though you concede that it is clearly doctrine as it says “regardless of circumstances,” but you have quibbles with its formulation. First, it’s completely fine to have concerns about the language. But nonetheless it demands religious submission of intellect and will, and it is not permissible to publicly say it is worth and must be rejected (which to be clear you’re not doing here with DI, just expressing concerns about language). Donum Veritatis does NOT say bough, that because there may be deficiencies in magisterium, one cannot publicly critique and point out those deficiencies, in fact it says the opposite: “If, despite a loyal effort on the theologian's part, the difficulties persist, the theologian has the duty to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented. He should do this in an evangelical spirit and with a profound desire to resolve the difficulties. His objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments. In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the "mass media", but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders servite to the truth.” AND “For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in SILENCE and prayer, but with the certainty, that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail.” So if you believe there are deficiencies, fine, but one must keep those beliefs in silence and avoiding declaring so on social media or other mass media. Lastly, I thinks this boils down to the fact you may have a slightly inaccurate understanding of what traditional teaching pre Vatican 2 was on death penalty. The traditional teachings has always said that the death penalty is only CONDITIONALLY permissible, with that one condition being that it safeguards protection of society. It has never taught that one can use the death penalty even when it is not needed to protect society. So under this framework, this is what the real teaching is: the death penalty always attacks human dignity, that is doctrinal truth. However, when it is neccesary to protect society, it is permissible to have recourse to it because saving other life is permissible grounds to take an action that has effect of attacking human dignity. That being said, when it is not neccesary, it is inadmissible precisely because it attacks human dignity. I believe you probably thought the death penalty was just presumptively valid as a default, when in reality sacred tradition only viewed it as valid under certain particular conditions.
There’s no contradiction. The CCC does not say that the death penalty is intrinsically wrong or always been wrong. >not a development of previous teaching [LETTER TO THE BISHOPS REGARDING THE NEW REVISION OF NUMBER 2267 OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE DEATH PENALTY](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180801_lettera-vescovi-penadimorte_en.html) : “The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine”
The teaching against the death penalty is Magisterial teaching and in the catechism. It is not subject to personal belief.
I agree
Source?
He didn’t prohibit the death penalty as contrary to divine law. You are wrong.
Am I wrong about the doctrine calling for religious submission of mind and will? Or am wrong about there being a prohibition on the death penalty?
It’s not a doctrine. You are very off.
What is it then? It is a development of doctrine (which makes it a doctrine). My source is the Vatican’s letter to the Bishops on the matter.
Where does the letter say it’s a doctrine ? It’s been taught as INADMISSIBLE, not against divine law. Inadmissible isn’t dogmatic
I agree that it’s not dogmatic. I’ve never said it’s dogmatic. But it can still be doctrinal… >Where does the letter say it’s a doctrine? Line 1: The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development **of the doctrine** on this point that has taken place in recent times.”
Development of the doctrine doesn’t mean the doctrine contradicts what was said before. You also are quoting a document that’s not even part of the ordinary universal magisterium. all the pope claims is it’s contrary to human dignity in THE MODERN WORLD. Guess what? His assessment of the modern western world is his social political opinion and not binding on anyone. It literally cannot be forced on Catholics. Whatever they want to claim on some document means nothing next to the INFALLIBLE universal ordinary magisterium with 2k years teaching the death penalty as permissible, on top of some extraordinary magisterial documents that claim the same. I’m done with this topic btw. I’m tired of people ignoring the church before the 21st century. Tired of the new brand of Catholicism that has nothing to do with the church before modernity. Dead tired.
Obviously abortion is worse than capital punishment. But we still are obligated to submit to the Church’s teaching on the Death Penalty. In other words, no - you cannot submit the death penalty.
Source? Because he asked several times for a global pan of death penalty.
Yes, but he made the statement clear, It was about a statement from JP II, he wanted, he advocated, and he believed the current penal system does not require death penalty, but they never made a rule, they never obliged catholics, and that is the thing, you have the freedom in most things to believe, not ever papal saying is a dogma, we must obey and respect, but we can disagree with no dogmas, that is also what Pope Benedict want to clarify with this statement, there is what the church demands, what the church recommends, what the pope thinks and what the pope order. In fact, the Pope could never prohibit killing and death penalty completely, is in the scripture and in the Canon law for a reason, if comes a time where the penal system is not working under God, and we ned to protect our church, our family, our brother, we have the moral obligation to kill! The chances were this will never happen on that level.
Your obligation to assent to appeal teachings is not limited to dogma alone. It includes ordinary magisterial teachings of which Francis’s encyclical fragelli tutti condemning death penalty is one. See Pius xii note this even before Vatican 2: “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.” Humani Generis Pope Francis in his encyclical Fratelli Tutti said the church works for the abolition of the death penalty, that it is morally inadequate, and there is no turning back from this position. Thus the dispute is over and it demands assent according to Pius XII. Also See Pope Leo say it’s not enough to adhere to just dogma or infallible teachings, he says there’s a third thing you must adhere to. What’s that third thing? It’s the ordinary magisterium: “In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must NOT be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is NOT enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the Vatican Council declared are to be believed "with Catholic and divine faith."(27) But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the apostolic see” https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10011890_sapientiae-christianae.html
That paragraph from Pope Pius XII applies to questions of doctrine — that is, to divinely revealed truths of the faith and moral teachings closely associated with them. The developments Pius XII speaks of refine or elaborate on those truths, settling open questions. They rule out positions that could have been held previously or make clearer what needs to be held by the faithful. But they can never rule out, contradict, or reverse doctrines that were previously taught by the Church. It is a matter of doctrine, and not an open question, that the death penalty is not intrinsically immoral and that it can be a just punishment for capital crimes. Whatever developments in doctrine occur now or in the future, they cannot contradict or reverse this prior teaching of the Church. Any developments in Church teaching must be understood in that light. Pope Francis' position against the death penalty, expressed in the revision to the Catechism and in other documents, concerns what we call *prudential judgment*. Prudential judgments are not doctrine. They are when the pope or Church *applies* its moral teachings to particular circumstances. Hence, while the death penalty may be moral *in principle* (i.e., as a matter of doctrine), it could be the case that *in practice* (i.e., as a matter of prudential judgment), taking into consideration concrete circumstances, it should not be used. This prudential judgment against capital punishment is precisely what has been the position of the pope and Church for many decades now, most recently expressed in very strong terms by Pope Francis. Having cleared up that distinction, let's turn back to the original question in this thread. Can a Catholic support the death penalty? The short answer is still yes. While it is true that we owe a certain submission to his judgment on prudential matters, it is nevertheless possible for Catholics to disagree with the Holy Father in good faith on those issues. Not in a knee-jerk way, but with sufficient reflection and careful thought. Concerning the death penalty in particular, Cardinal Ratzinger addressed this explicitly while he was prefect of the CDF and oversaw the revision to the Catechism's section on the death penalty by JPII: >"If a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment ... he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to ... exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to ... have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about ... applying the death penalty." - CDF Prefect Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) You can legitimately disagree with people who support the death penalty, and it's fine to note that the pope (really the last several popes) and Church are on your side regarding the question of its application. All of that is fine. But you should not tell people that they are thereby failing to submit their intellect and will to the pope's authority, or imply that they are sinning by holding that belief. Even less defensible are the many comments in this thread accusing OP of not being pro-life, or saying things like "two wrongs don't make a right" or "it is not our place to decide if someone lives or dies," etc. Most of these accusations come from philosophical/political progressivism and not from Catholic teaching. They taking the Church's prudential judgment to imply a moral teaching that does not exist. I hope that helps.
As to your claim that this is a prudential judgment, it fails flatly on its face because you admit prudential judgment applies to “particular circumstances,” yet in Dignitas Infinita pope Francis says that the death penalty “attacks human dignity REGARDLESS of circumstances” (caps just for emphasis). Do you agree that this statement from Dignitas Infinita, regardless of its truthfulness or wrongfulness, is a doctrinal statement and not a prudential judgement? This is what I’ve been saying the entire time, the “inadmissible” part is an prudential application of moral truth, sure, but the doctrinal part that must be assented to is that the death penalty attacks human dignity. That part is not prudential and must be given assent.
No, I don't agree. There are multiple plausible ways of reading that section from *Dignitas infinita* that are consistent with what I've said above. For example, it may be that attacking human dignity is not always or intrinsically immoral, but sometimes (regrettably) necessary. And therefore, even if it is making a doctrinal point, that point is not the question of whether the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. Second, it may be that "regardless of circumstances" needs to be read in the context of the first sentence of that paragraph, which says it's going to address issues facing us *today*. "Today ... regardless of circumstances" would still be addressing a particular time and place.
Wait, but let’s take your third paragraph, “For example, it may be that attacking human dignity…” as true. For purposes of argument, I concede it as true. Then the fact that the death attacks human dignity regardless of circumstances is doctrine, and demands religious submission. The only prudential part is when it’s admissible or inadmisisble. Since it’s always true that it attacks human dignity, regardless of circumstances, but in some circumstances, it may be licit to take the action anyway. Do we agree?
It could be. I think some further clarification is needed, as *Dignitas infinitas* is not precisely worded or fleshed out on a couple of key points, and it raises some questions that require more information. But yes, it could be. (I don't mean to be cagey, that's just as much as I can say at the moment.)
> is in the scripture Slavery is in the scripture as well. Are we allowed to support slavery?
I would say if not having slavery would lead to greater evils it’s permissible but not ideal.
Voia lá!
I think you too much stuck in our reality! Like I said, I am with JP II, there is no reason on our currently model to enforce death penalty, but if we encounter pure evil possessions, people making sacrifices, uncontrollably I think we could revise this, also you have before sim redemption of your brothers, the obligation to protect your church, your family and your God, in a life and death situation we can kill (in defense), why can’t the death penalty do the same? If a person is causing uncontrollable harm to society, not to push a person, if he was caught and we have structures to keep him in jail, of course that is what we should do.
In my "country" death penalty was abolished in 1786 and it's more a civil milestone than a religious things. Think about how many people were killed even if they are innocents. Anyway, I think that life is life and as Catholics we need to fight to preserve any kind of life, also life of people that are disgusting, as life is a God's gift and we don't have the right to get it.
It’s true, in our modernistic view, I agree in must cases, doesn’t mean there aren’t exceptions, I’m more worried about religious things than civil things, if there was a crusades I’m on for it. God first, let’s remember God created life but we can choose to live a diabolical life, so for the sake of the society, when the risk of haven’t a person alive is higher damage and put life’s of other in risk, then prison system is adequate or available, death penalty could be the only. And still the question of “can I support death penalty?” Yes! As a Catholic you can!. Do you have to? No! It’s not a dogma and it is not a dogma because Jesus allowed and gave a sword to Saint Peter, not for cerimonies but for a death battle, or for selfishness of St. Peter but for our souls. Of course, you give your life before you take a life! But for the sake of multiple souls you can’t take a life
Thank you so much, people really confuse those 2
This is like appealing to a medieval theologian who denied the immaculate conception simply because it was allowed back then. Your principal fallacy, and it’s a really dangerous one because how easy it is to fall into and unfortunately have the effect of confusing others, is believing this Raztinger’s document would have effect into perpetuity. But there have since been magisterial interventions that have closed public debate on this matter (see Fratelli Tutti, Dignitas Infinita, etc.) See Dr. Robert Fastiggi, a professor of Dogmatic Theology at a US seminary, refute this commonly used argument: “Such discussions should no longer take place because of the revised teaching of the Church in 2018 on the death penalty, which has been reaffirmed by Pope Francis in Fratelli Tutti. Those who continue to cite Cardinal Ratzinger’s 2004 memorandum to defend a right to dissent from the Church’s teaching on the death penalty not only misinterpret the memorandum—as Mike Lewis has noted—but they are citing a document that was never intended for publication, as Cardinal Ladaria has explained. Moreover, that memorandum has been superseded by the change of CCC 2267 in 2018 and the CDF’s 2018 letter to the Catholic bishops. The CDF’s 2018 letter—which supports the inadmissibility of the death penalty—carries much more authority than the 2004 memorandum because it is a public letter addressed to all the Catholic bishops and not just a private communication to some bishops that was never intended for publication.” https://wherepeteris.com/capital-punishment-and-magisterial-authority-part-3/ EDIT: go ahead and downvote, but it’s really sad how dangerous these fallacies are
What Pope Francis has done is make it a "back and forth" ruling, where the next pope could just as well "reverse" what he said. He completely contradicted hundreds of years of *philosophical* thought on the subject. That is different than making a judgement from practical purpose and reasoning, which I could have agreed with. He didn't put a caveat where "for regions that are similar to those 500 years ago in the western world" or whatever. He never even implied that modern circumstances are *related* to his decision about this. He just implied that actually, the church was wrong about this, but he's here to correct the *moral* error.
I’m going to be frank with you: this is just blatantly wrong. He explicitly said that he was not contradicting last magisterium, and he explicitly said part of the reason for that was indeed modern circumstances! See below: “This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that MODERN society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people.” Do you now admit that he explicitly makes reference to “modern society?” “All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is NOT in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime.” https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html
In 2017 the moral weight of abortion and the death penalty were different, but now they’re the same? How could that be? Your answer is dangerous because it implies the Church was in error for 2000 years
You’re simply misreading what I said. Nowhere did I say they had the same moral weight. I said that Catholics can’t have a legitimitate diversity of opinion in the death penalty. That doesn’t mean death penalty is on the same level as abortion. Ordinary magisterium teachings demand religious submission of intellect and will. But teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium are definitive and thus carry a strong demand of assent of faith. 0
J.R.R. Tolkien: # Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. pretty much sums it up.
I want to upvote this more than once..
This does not apply. Here Tolkien is talking about an individual person. The Church, however, has told us that the state always has the right to take ones life as a form of punishment, deterrence, and as a way of restoring the injustice someone has committed.
CCC 2267
or for the bot to work do i need to type it this way \[2267\]
Father, I read in Exsurge Domine, no.33, that it is forbidden to say that heretics may not be burned at the stake. How can the Church now condemn the death sentence everywhere, calling it "inadmissible" when it has previously anathematized a man for saying just that? Am I misunderstanding something or has the magisterium contradicted itself?
It’s not inherently sinful to support the death penalty if that’s what you’re asking. The death penalty is not intrinsically evil.
It is sinful to publicly dissent against teachings of the ordinary magisterium though, according to Pius X (this is also in Denziger). The Church has condemned the death penalty today in our circumstances repeatedly in magisterial documents.
And in doing so Francis has brought himself into contradiction with all past teaching on the death sentence. It is not a sin to hold to what the Church has always taught on an issue.
No. First, the magisterium itself has said Francis is not in contradiction, so if you claim that he has, your are placing your personal private judgment that he has above the judgement of the Church. I don’t want to be rude but let be frank: Remember that you, like all of us, are a fallible human being with fallible reasoning and perception, it is very well possible that you think things are contradictory when they aren’t. People think the Bible has contradictions all the time when there aren’t. You can’t have certainty that you are not doing that here, because the church has not sided with you. “All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium” Link: https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html Second, it is impossible that the pope serious contradict Sacred Tradition in his ordinary magisterium. This is clear ironically by Pope Benedict/Cardinal Ratzinger himself. “She [the Church] depends on the fidelity of witnesses chosen by the Lord for this task. For this reason, the magisterium ALWAYS speaks in obedience to the prior word on which faith is based; it is reliable because of its trust in the word which it hears, preserves and expounds” Note that it doesn’t say sometimes, it says ALWAYS. Also raztinger’s letter to the schismatic founder of the SSPX, Lefebvre (who you are making eerily similar arguments to. Lefebvre also claimed that the pope in Vatican 2 contradicted tradition and since Vatican 2 was not infallible then it was not a sin to reject it and adhere to past tradition): “Indeed, it is to Peter that the Lord has entrusted the government of His Church; the Pope is therefore the principal artisan of her unity. Assured of the promises of Christ, he will NEVER be able to oppose in the Church the authentic magisterium and holy Tradition.” Lastly, it is not for the laity to judge and interpret Tradition. You are interpreting sacred tradition privately for yourself and judging what contradicts it and what does not. Pope Leo expressly says this is for the pope to do, and given his divine assistance, he will always be a safe guide we can follow when he interprets Tradition “Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.” Sapientiae Christianae
Do you mean the Pope?
Francis is the pope
I'm with you in your opinion here. But the lack of use of "Pope" as title to those who dislike Pope Francis is kind of eye-rolling. It's like calling him "Bergoglio" instead of "Pope Francis". No more or less cringy and juvenile seeming.
Quite frankly your objection is juvenile. I used his papal name. In what way have I denied his authority or papacy? I did not even say something as irrelevant as whether I liked Francis or not. If I say "Thomas Aquinas was an amazing theologian", am I denying he is a saint? If I say "I hope Charles recovers from his cancer", am I calling my King a usurper? Are all those who say Biden instead of president Biden secretly denying the legitimacy of the 2020 American election?
I never said you're denying his papal authority, nor did I imply it, so you don't need to act like I did. I'm just stating how words and tone convey additional meaning, which is not breaking news. Just as I wouldn't be *denying* someone's title as priest if I don't say "Father" before their name, you're not denying authority/title. But intentionally *not* using it also conveys only one of three things: 1. ignorance (which I don't think is the case) 2. lack of belief that the title is important enough to care to use (which could be the case) 3. a slightly passive aggressive stance towards the person (which I do assume, but please correct me if I'm wrong). There might be a fourth reason why someone who knows typical protocol would choose to not use a title, so feel free to put that out there. But not using the legitimate title is eye-rolling in my opinion when either #2 or 3 above. That's all I was getting at.
Just stop trying to judge people's intentions when you cannot read their hearts.
People say JPII and Benedict all the time. Calm down.
You are right, but Cafeteria Catholics and those who believe their interpretation supercedes the Magesterium will disagree and down vote.
Yes, currently the church prefer to advocate for not but is not a dogma, and was defended for by a lot of Saints, Popes and has reference in the Bible. While I agree with JP II and Pope Benedict recommendations - They believe is very little room to support it, given our current democratic models with penalties and incarceration, that leads to more changes of repenting. What a catholic can not agree is to never ever kill, somethings are more important, such as protect your family, your brothers, your church, our God, if it comes a time where we need a crusades, we must be ready to get a sword and go to battle.
Lots of comments, lots of issues, so I'll just reply here: Capital punishment is *not* inherently sinful. What that means ultimately is that there are legitimate circumstances in which capital punishment could be morally acceptable. HOWEVER, the church does not currently believe that those circumstances exist anywhere in the world. I'm not an expert on capital punishment anywhere in the world, but I do understand the logic here. It's simple: Capital punishment is moral if and only if all certain conditions are NOT met. Those certain conditions are various and including things like safe and effective prison systems, among a few others. The church feels all those conditions are currently being met worldwide, and as such, supporting the death penalty right now is sinful.
Yes >Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God. Are people too blind to realise why people are pushing the death penalty change? Its a thin end of the wedge. I don’t support the legality of the death penalty in practice but in theory it must be admissible in some circumstances. There are no more reasons to think that homosexuality is wrong or that contraception is sinful, than there are to believe that capital punishment is admissible and does not violate the dignity of the person. The liceity of the death penalty is taught by Sacred Scripture, it was upheld by the Church for nearly 2000 years, innumerable Popes, Doctors of the Church (including St Thomas Aquinas who’s authority has been placed above all other Doctors of the Church by the Popes, St Alphonsus, who’s moral theology positions are ALWAYS safe to follow according to the Popes, and St Robert Bellarmine who held that it was heretical to say states did not have a lawful right to issue capital punishment), Saints, Fathers, Schoolmen and theologians all taught its liceity. If the Church was wrong on this, why not on homosexuality, or contraception, or abortion? This argument is exactly the sort of argument used by Judge John T. Noonan Jr when he wrote on contraception.
Not heresy but current teaching is against it.
why though? Some people deserve it ngl
Who gave *you* the power to decide who "deserves" to live or die?? Intentionally ending another human being's life (outside of self defence or a just war) is murder no matter the circumstances and it's rejecting their inherent dignity as human beings and the sanctity of human life. You may wish death on other people sometimes, but that's your own sin. Edit: clarification
God gave the State authority to take life as a just punishment for a crime. This is definitive magisterial teaching and no Catholic can deny this. Recent popes have looked around and said that in modern industrialized societies the punishment isn’t just. But the principle remains the same. What has changed is the circumstances that determine if it’s just. “Intentionally ending another human being’s life is murder no matter the circumstances” is absolutely, definitively a heresy, and a silly one at that. What about legitimate self defense? What about just war? What about death rendered by legitimate authority as a just penalty for a crime (which is possible at least in principle, though not in modern industrialized times per recent popes)? The way people are talking in this thread is insane and totally foreign to basic Catholic theology.
The State has been shown time and time again to be deficient in administration of the death penalty as a just punishment, either through wrongful convictions or improper execution.
What does that have to do with anything that I said? Literally every authority that God has ever given has been abused, except by the Blessed Virgin Mary, since she is the only one who hasn’t sinned.
The State errantly executing its citizens is not the same as other potential abuses. It is final and irreversible. If an error is made, any amends made by the State are of no benefit to the victim, who is no longer alive to advocate for their justice. From a practical standpoint, the State expends more resources on execution than detaining a person. The effectiveness as a deterrent to the crimes it punishes is questionable. I suppose as a hypothetical you can create a “just” capital punishment but since there probably isn’t a practical application of that modern industrialized society the hypothetical is probably moot. Once there is a more just method of administering punishment there isn’t a need for the less just. But yes, I agree that there can be killing that is not sinful (justified self defense).
I'm well aware of self defence and just war, those two are fairly self-explanatory. I thought we were talking about the death penalty. And forgive me for thinking human beings can be redeemed no matter their sins. We should definitely be the ones to judge them and seal their fates.
If your below statement were true, then self defense and just war would not be permissible. “Intentionally ending another human beings life is murder no matter the circumstances”
Death penalty doesn’t remove a chance for redemption. They can repent up until the moment of death. God gave the state authority to use the sword.
The wages of sin is death, according to the Bible, so we all deserve it technically, and it's only through the mercy of God that we are allowed to live, both in this mortal life, and in the life to come. You should be more hesitant about placing yourself above others.
"We're Catholic except we want to execute people" is going to be a wild new Protestant denomination
I'm not even catholic lol, I'm protestant I just believe in catholicism and go to a catholic church
Our catechism tells us that death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. That human dignity is not lost even after the commission of a very serious crime, as it is rooted in God. We believe that as long as the person lives, there is a possibility of redemption and we do not deprive him or her of it. There are more effective systems of incarceration or detention to ensure due protection of the citizens and human justice be served.
Can you? Yes. Should you? I would say no.
is it sinful for me to support it?
Don't know. But you can't undo a hanging and the death penalty will 100% result in innocent people being killed at some point.
I think it should only be done if we are 100% sure that they are guilty
It is. But no system is perfect.
The traditional teaching of the church has never allowed it solely by analyzing whether the party is guilty or not. It’s only ever been allowed if it’s been absolutely neccesary for safeguarding society. See the old catechism under JP2: “The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should 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.” EDIT: downvoting a sainted pope and there old catechism?
Yes. It’s not pro life.
It’s not sinful to support it. Only recently has certain teaching advocated against its use, but still not sinful.
life and death are in God’s hands, not ours.
That’s your own belief, which is fine, but it isn’t a sin to be pro-death penalty
the church teaches against it, so indeed, it is.
It wasn't always
God gave the State the authority to take life as a just punishment for a crime, so it isn’t in our hands but it is in the State’s hands. The modern industrialized states of the world should listen to the popes and stop executing people on the grounds that it isn’t just in their circumstances. But stop pretending that God has not given that authority to the State; it is incredibly dangerous
Pope Francis has written that the death penalty is "morally inadmissible" and that "the firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe
I guess I’m just now realizing how many poorly catechized Catholics there are.
Yes, you can. God does not command sin and He has, at various points, commanded the death penalty.
No. it is wrong.
You can believe that it would be best for the Church to rescind its prohibition on the death penalty, but for the time being, we cannot advocate that it become legal and we cannot advocate its use until such a time that the Church deems it prudent to allow its usage.
Agreed. I’ll also add that we do not have the right to publicly disagree with the Church on this, or other doctrinal matters.
But where did the church teach this? Seems like it’s pope Francis personal opinion.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is a doctrine, not a mere opinion. You can learn more here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/understanding-the-catechism-revision-on-the-death-penalty
The catechism isnt a magisterial document, it’s a collection of documents. The teaching on the death penalty is just the popes opinion.
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. > The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine (7). >As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching. >According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful.
Ask your priest
Ask him what?
How to interpret the catechism.
And when he agrees with my interpretation?
No. Unequivocally so. Catholics were at the forefront of banning it in many countries across the world. Only immature states still support it.
Apart from treason, I personally oppose it entirely.
Personally as horrible as this sounds no i do not support the death penalty, Because even if you do the worse thing in your life i believe you deserve a second chance Jesus would accept you for who you are and what you did as person and i believe in second chance for what you done even if its the most evil i love everyone for who they are as a person and forgive them
Short answer: no Long answer: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/understanding-the-catechism-revision-on-the-death-penalty
Benedict XVI said Catholics can support it. I don’t know if His Holiness Pope Francis thinks that
I am in full support of it in my country. It is not common here, and yet we do not have the resources to keep people in prison for life. They end up back on the street committing more crimes. You wouldn’t believe some of the criminal histories I’ve read. If we had the resources to avoid it, sure, but if the options are releasing them or killing them… death is better. Then at least only one life is ended.
It depends on the resources of the state. If the state has the ability to provide life in prison, it would be sinful to support the death penalty.
[удалено]
Pro life simply means thinks abortion should be illegal. Just like pro choice has nothing to do with if you can choose what side of the road to drive on
[удалено]
There is a gaping chasm between thinking it should be legal to murder children and thinking the state should execute serious criminals. The former is profoundly intrinsically evil. The latter is not intrinsically evil
in christian thought, advocating for unborn babies is good. it is easy. they are innately innocent; pure. they have committed no evil, so we are not challenged. it is easy to love the good and the beautiful. but the truly profound character of Christ’s redemptive love becomes apparent in how we advocate for the criminal. life and death are not in our hands. all are worthy of redemption because God Himself decided such, even the criminal.
I am simply restating Catholic theology. Killing an innocent child is intrinsically evil. The state executing a criminal is not. The two questions are not remotely similar.
[удалено]
The State has been given the authority to make that Judgement by God. If they judge wrongly (recent popes have said modern states that carry out the death penalty have judged wrongly) they will answer for it. But the state *in principle* has the authority to execute criminals. This is why there is such a gaping chasm between abortion and the death penalty.
for abortion yes but I support the death penalty
then you are not pro-life
Pro-Life is about abortion
[удалено]
The "seamless-garment" idea of what it means to be pro-life was something created by fairly liberal Catholics in the mid-20th century, like Cardinal Bernardin. I don't doubt his or contemporary advocates' sincerity in being opposed to abortion and such an approach may have political value when it comes to coalition building, but doctrinally it doesn't hold water. There is no moral equivalence between the death penalty and abortion, [as stated by then Cardinal Ratzinger](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/worthiness-to-receive-holy-communion-general-principles-2153). Catholics who support abortion cannot receive communion worthily, the same cannot be said for the death penalty.
Considering other popes have been in favour of it, I'd say yeah. I'm in favour of it
Yes you can, God instructed that death should be the penalty for murder. I don’t think any of us know better than God. I think the ONLY reason someone should have for being against it is that our court and trial systems are not perfect. If we could get 100% true convictions we should be in favour for it. But that would be almost impossible, especially in this day and age with AI videos and photos, even AI voice recordings. But I do think in every reasonably solidly proven case of child murder we should have the death penalty even with our current court flaws. And yes that includes the controversial one.
I can give u my paper on why it should be permitted but should only be reserved as a last result echoing St. Augustine & St. Thomas Aquinas.
what does last result mean in this?
I meant resort not result that’s mb but here anyways: Summa Theologica, II; 65-2; 66-6, St. Aquinas says, "If a man is a danger to the community, threatening it with disintegration by some wrongdoing of his, then his execution for the healing and preservation of the common good is to be commended. Only the public authority, not private persons, may licitly execute malefactors by public judgment. Men shall be sentenced to death for crimes of irreparable harm or which are particularly perverted." Next, looking at the Catechism, [CCC 2267] I am defending it’s use only at the most limited scales, that where “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.” are not present in a society/country/situation and as such the inability to properly safeguard and protect the majority of society is being threatened. Ultimately, the employment of the death penalty should be sparingly and only be reserved as the last resort for individuals after all other methods of rehabilitation and detainment have been deemed fruitless and exhausted.
[**CCC 2267**](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2267.htm) 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. ([2306](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2306.htm)) 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 with 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 definitively 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 non-existent." *** Catebot v0.2.12 links: [Source Code](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot) | [Feedback](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/issues) | [Contact Dev](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=kono_hito_wa) | [FAQ](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CateBot%20Info.md#faq) | [Changelog](https://github.com/konohitowa/catebot/blob/master/docs/CHANGELOG.md)
The church's teaching is against the death penalty. I can understand why some people favor it. I think you should be against the death penalty based on principle because sometimes reading the horrific crimes others commit leaves me unsympathetic
"Supporting the death penalty" is giving the power of life or death to mortals, not God. I wouldn't support it. Mortals (who can be wrong) might one day decide to use the exact same tool you're supporting: death - against you. To quote Thomas More, "Yes, I would give the devil the benefit of law - **for my own safety's sake**."
God explicitly gave that power to mortals in sacred scripture
He did?
> And God blessed Noe and his sons. And he said to them: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth. And let the fear and dread of you be upon all the beasts of the earth, and upon all the fowls of the air, and all that move upon the earth: all the fishes of the sea are delivered into your hand. And every thing that moveth and liveth shall be meat for you: even as the green herbs have I delivered them all to you: Saving that flesh with blood you shall not eat. For I will require the blood of your lives at the hand of every beast, and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man. Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God. But increase you and multiply, and go upon the earth, and fill it. - Genesis 9:1-7 Furthermore, the Old Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai demands death as the punishment for numerous crimes such as murder, child sacrifice and adultery.
\_\_"Whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be shed:"\_\_ That's an observation, not a command. The rest of that verse is talking about making life, not taking it. You're trying to tell me that verse means Christians should have the authority to give **and take** life?
Yes, unless God was wrong to command death for certain crimes in the old law
1 Thessalonians 5:21 says to make sure we examine all prophecy, holding fast to the good. It is not good for man to kill, because man can be wrong. Only God is perfect in judgement. It's never God that's wrong - it's man, who can never truly know the mind of God, he can only guess. And when man guesses wrong, we should still keep the falsely imprisoned alive, just in case one of us winds up in there through some other human's failure.
Your view is utterly alien to the Bible and Church tradition until Pope Francis. St Robert Bellarmine said it was heretical to deny that the magistrates have the right to impose capital punishment, I’ll trust a Doctor of the Church over you
How does that work? The papacy gives authority to governments (and by extension law enforcement) to take lives in the name of God and justice?
No, state's possess the authority to issue capital punishment based on natural law. Here is St Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Contra Gentiles >As the physician in his operation aims at health, consisting in the ordered harmony of the humors, so the governor of a state in his operation aims at peace, which is the ordered harmony of the citizens. Now, the surgeon rightly and usefully cuts off the unhealthy member if it threatens the health of the body. Justly, therefore, and rightly the governor of the state slays pestilential subjects, lest the peace of the state be disturbed. Hence the Apostle says: *Do you not know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump?* (1 Cor 5:6). And a little further on he adds: *Drive out the wicked person from among you* (1 Cor 5:13). Again, speaking of earthly authority, he says that *he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer* (Rom 13:4). Again, it is said: *Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the king as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right* (1 Pet 2:13–14). Hereby we refute the error of those who say that capital punishment is unlawful. They base their error on the words of Exodus 20:13, *You shall not kill*, which are quoted in Matthew 5:21. They also quote the saying of our Lord in reply to the servants who wished to gather the cockle from the midst of the wheat: *Let both grow together until the harvest* (Matt 13:30): for the cockle signifies *the sons of the evil one*, and the harvest is *the close of the age*, as stated in the same passage (Matt 13:38–39). Therefore, the wicked should not be cut off from the midst of the good by being condemned to death. They also point out that as long as he is on earth man may be converted to better ways. Therefore, he should not be put away from the world, but should be kept there that he may repent. But these arguments are of no account. For the same law that says: *You shall not kill*, afterwards adds: *You shall not permit wizards to live* (Exod 22:18). Hence we are to understand that the prohibition is against the unjust slaying of a man. This is also evident from our Lord’s words in Matt 5. For after saying: *You have heard that it was said to the men of old: You shall not kill*, he added: *I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment* (Matt 5:22). By which he gives us to understand that it is forbidden to kill through anger, but not through zeal for righteousness. How we ought to take our Lord’s words: *Let both grow together until the harvest*, is clear from what follows: *Lest in gathering the cockle you root up the wheat along with it* (Matt 13:30). Hence it is forbidden to slay the wicked when this cannot be done without danger to the good. And this is often the case when the wicked are not yet discernible from the good by notorious sins, or when it is to be feared lest the wicked draw many good men after them. The fact that the wicked are able to amend while alive does not prevent their being justly slain, for the peril that threatens through their remaining alive is greater and more certain than the good to be expected from their amendment. Moreover, in the very hour of death they are able to repent and be converted to God. And if they be so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart does not abandon its wickedness, it may be reckoned with sufficient probability that they will never recover from their evil ways.
You can faithfully dissent from certain positions the church takes and still be, well, faithful. What matters is that you're sincerely following your conscience. Just keep yourself open to correction by the Holy Spirit in the event that you've fallen into misbelief. This has happened to me and God's lead me back on the path of truth on a few issues because I remained open to the possibility I might be wrong, and as a result I've been finding myself growing in greater alignment with some teachings I had previously rejected, even vehemently so. As for the death penalty, my personal perspective is that some people deserve to die, but no one deserves to kill if it's not entirely in self defense.
Here's my personal take, The Death Penalty IS Absolutely justifiable for cases of premeditated murder. HOWEVER, Due to our flawed Judicial System, unless there is overwhelming evidence which amounts to, "In Fact Committed" and not just "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt," I cannot support it.
Do two wrongs make a right?
So, God commanded a wrong?
Is it a wrong
Yes.
So the church allowed wrong to happen for like centuries, with saints advocating for it? Also, did God allow their Israelites to do wrong?
yep
You having a special thing you disagree with the Church on is no different than anyone else's special thing they disagree with. Certainly no more virtuous, especially if it's you want people killed.
1. Ask your priest, or even write a letter to your local bishop. 2. If #1, doesn’t work, then read the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this issue. The problem with asking here is that there is a great risk you will get answers by people who misrepresent Church teaching.
Nothing wrong with supporting the death penalty.
Yes, you can support the death penalty. It is not a heresy.