Pope Pius XII
|
In 1952 Pope Pius XII said the following, in a public address recorded among his official acts:
Cardinal Dulles gives a thorough account of the teaching of the Church on First Things here.
Posted on 10/15/2017 11:17:36 AM PDT by ebb tide
Ultramontanism's Death Sentence
Pope Pius XII
|
In 1952 Pope Pius XII said the following, in a public address recorded among his official acts:
Generally, the position of the church is - unless there is a compelling social safety reason, executions are not appropriate.
The issue is not papal infallibility. The issue is Church Infallibility. The Church’s Ordinary Universal Magisterium is infallible. Her teaching on the death penalty is part of the OUM.
That is a prudential position. Catholic doctrine has never opposed capital punishment.
Not per se, however, the Catechism is perfectly clear on the church's reluctance related to that practice.
To say the church "supports" capital punishment is a statement fierce opposition to the long-standing teaching of the church related to that matter.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."
Emphasis mine.
Emphasis mine.
To say the church “opposes” capital punishment is a statement in fierce opposition to the eternal doctrine of the church related to that matter.
Jesus never raised the issue of her guilt. Adultery was a serious crime, and due to social needs for strong families and proper inheritance, was considered a grave crime punishable by death. Was the adulterous woman “reformed”? Before Jesus’ final admonishment to her, we have no evidence of that. Was it possible, or even likely she might sin again unless stopped? Sure. We can consider society was at risk for her future misdeeds.
So while the adulterous woman met many of the criteria for a “just” execution, Jesus intervened and stopped it when He was asked about the matter.
To say JP II's 1992 catechism expresses long-standing church teaching is quite an exaggeration.
If a Magisterial declaration is in opposition to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, it is incorrect. There must be harmony.
I’m not Catholic, but I do know that when He hung on the cross, between two criminals, Jesus didn’t say anything against the Romans putting them to death. He DID say to the repentant thief, “Today, you will be with Me in Paradise”. Criminals condemned to death, have ample time to repent and accept Jesus, something which their victims have usually been denied.
I think of St. Catherine of Siena, who had miraculous powers to discern the state of people's souls, and often prayed for and with condemned men, while acknowledging that they deserved their sentences.
The "Good Thief" Dimas, on the cross next to Jesus, is an example of this. He himself said that he was being crucified justly, on account of his crime, and Jesus did not contradict that. Interesting that He didn't. He did say the man, accepting his just punishment and appealing to God for mercy, would be in Paradise.
Exactly. The modernist wheels were already in motion then.
Why is the story only about the woman taken in adultery? What happened to the man she was committing adultery with? Had he already been killed, or had he managed to escape?
OOps, typo.
Dimas = Dismas
I think any well-formed Catholic conscience can A), see the value of peace through superior firepower and B), see how utterly unqualified the current hierarchy is to offer an opinion on the matter.
We wonder about that at Bible study.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.