Posted on 08/02/2018 6:47:50 AM PDT by ebb tide
ROME — Pope Francis has changed Catholic Church teaching to fully reject the death penalty, the Vatican announced Thursday, saying it would work to abolish capital punishment worldwide.
The change addresses several sentences of the catechism, the compendium of Catholic teaching, but it sharply amplifies the church’s opposition against one of the world’s most debated policies.
The church’s updated teaching states that capital punishment is “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” Previously, the church allowed for the death penalty in very rare cases, only as a means of “defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Obviously, then, Jesus Christ should have died in prison serving a life sentence without possibility of parole for our sins.
I always thought this was the case anyways.
Maybe the Dubia can send him a strongly worded letter.
A 3000 page strongly worded letter.
Curious timing
Scripture? Baahh!
Renegade pope.
I don’t think Pontiius Pilate was Catholic.
This l pope is a commie posing as a Catholic Pope.
Don’t they need to do all of this through “encyclicals” (or whaatever documents are applicable) still? I’m not positive a Pope can change a lot of things with the stroke of a pen.
Jesus recommended a millstone around the neck and a quick trip to the bottom of the sea, for those who corrupt children. Does this pope have anything to say about that?
A passage in Romans states "It is good to fear the sword of the state, for it has its purpose."
I had always cited this in defense of the death penalty, but I now see other considerations.
1 - The Pope is dealing with the rest of the world, who's law don't provide the protections afforded in the U.S.
2 - I've seen way too many examples of prosecutors aggressively pursuing high conviction rates, simply to further their political careers. Too many have been released from death row, in recent years, based upon DNA evidence.
3 - Just because we can cite cases where it is perfectly justified, doesn't mean we can insure against abuse in other cases.
I guess he’s just smarter than Augustine or Aquinas.
Jesus certainly did not object to justified killing of people. And the Commandment, properly translated, would read, “Thou Shall Not Murder”. Murder is unjust killing.
In fact, Jesus suggested that anyone that sins against a child should have a millstone tied around their neck and thrown into the deepest sea.
The church has long forgotten it’s mission. We (they) are supposed to be saving souls, not lives and possessions. It matters not what we have or how long we live in this existence. But what comes after is sorta important. It lasts forever. THAT is what Jesus wants the Pope to worry about. Focus on the souls, not the body. The church should be silent on corporal punishment. “Give to Caesar what is Caeser’s.” Instead, evangelize and help the condemned find God in their waning hours by repentance. Save their souls, not their pitiful lives.
Exactly what I thought. My namesake asked for the death penalty for homosexual priests and bishops.
“There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia." - Cardinal Ratzinger
God required Israel kill many criminals. But why listen to God?
What is moral justification for allowing someone to live after they have deprived an innocent person of the same right. The moral position is to deprive the murderer of his life
Even if this were true --- and it is NOT true all over the world, where many countries do NOT have the budget to keep large numbers of capital offenders in expensive, maximum security prison for decades --- but even if were true, it can NOT be said that the death penalty is intrinsically opposed to the Gospel.
Once again, the person who is most stridently opposing the Papal Magisterium is himself, the Pope.
Some top Bishops need to get right out front and say this is not in magisterial form, and it is not binding.
This bothers me because, in practice, I must agree that where a no-lethal just penalty is possible, the death sentence should be set aside, and life-imprisonment-without-possibilty-of-parole should be preferred. Particularly because it still sometimes happens that men who are not in fact guilty of the crime are unjustly convicted.
But to say the death penalty is inherently contrary to Divine Law is just wrong. So this cannot stand.
Tagline
Just a few things changed after the Resurrection.
I'm conflicted on this. There are cases where the perpetrators of horrific crimes deserve only one thing, a speedy trip to *ell. But, as you cite, there are mistakes. DNA has established that. There are some cases (such as the Oklahoma City bombing) where civilization might best be served if the maniacs were around for scientific research into the demented mind and perhaps for future information about any associates they might have had. Then there's the drawn out procedure of trial, retrial, pardons, actually taking away from closure for those affected. Better that those who commit these horrific acts be locked up for good in an underground cell without what they did getting any more sensationalist publicity.
Then there's the commitment to life. It's a crazy world. Those who support the slaughter of the preborn don't think a serial killer should be put to death. Huh? An innocent pre-separation infant has no right to life, but those who've slaughtered people do? Then there's my commitment to life. I support strongly the right of the preborn to their lives. Only God should take a life. So shouldn't it be left to God when those who would otherwise get the death penalty should die?
It's complicated, in my mind. ,
The question I do have is, can this Pope make any changes?
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.