Pope Francis changed the Catholic Church's stance on the death penalty in a new policy published Thursday, saying it is “inadmissible” because it “attacks” the inherent dignity of all humans.
Death Penalty
- Thread starter Triumph1300
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yet it was God who decreed that the penalty for murder is death.
On what authority is this changed.
On what authority is this changed.
By the authority of the Gospels. The Pope has no authority to change any laws anywhere, contrary to the psychotic babbling of paranoid anti-Catholics.
- the new version of the catechism states:
Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, 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. Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
CWN story: Pope revises Catechism’s teaching on death penalty
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. Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ (in other words, outdated)
The Pope can say—indeed Pope John Paul II did say—that it is always wrong, in every case, deliberately to take the life of an innocent human being. But if he values logical consistency, he cannot say that it is always wrong to take an innocent life under current political conditions. Because political conditions change.
Yet in the language that he has inserted into the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis appears to teach that the death penalty is always unjust—“inadmissible”—because of certain political and social developments. We’ll take a closer look at that argument below. (I have already made a few comments on the explanatory paragraph, in a column posted yesterday.)
That is what a murder does and as Man is made in the image of God it is a direct affront to God.
A murder is by the nature of the crime not innocent.
- Aug 10, 2012
- 6,107
- 7,511
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
So the arguement against the death penalty is human dignity? How is life in prison more dignified than being executed?
The Apostle Paul did not object to the death penalty.
He knew his rights as a Roman citizen and defended them, and he knew that God's word commanded that, "Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death..." (Deut. 17:6).
Yet while on trial, he volunteered the following endorsement of capital punishment to Porcius Festus, Governor in Caesarea:
He knew his rights as a Roman citizen and defended them, and he knew that God's word commanded that, "Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death..." (Deut. 17:6).
Yet while on trial, he volunteered the following endorsement of capital punishment to Porcius Festus, Governor in Caesarea:
- "For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar." Acts 25:11
- Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, "You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" Acts 25:12
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,471
- 21,160
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
Matt 5:
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: ( Ez 21 v 24 )
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...."
.
38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: ( Ez 21 v 24 )
39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...."
.
So parents of a murder victim should forgive to the extent that they have been hurt, which requires a tremendous amount of forgiveness to cover a tremendous amount of hurt.
In North America, sadly, their sorrow is agitated and increased by a government that mocks their grief through mercy to the murderer.
How does a mother's broken heart heal when the wound is reopened each time her daughter's murderer is up for appeal, or sues the jail, or gets a photo in the newspaper.
In North America, sadly, their sorrow is agitated and increased by a government that mocks their grief through mercy to the murderer.
How does a mother's broken heart heal when the wound is reopened each time her daughter's murderer is up for appeal, or sues the jail, or gets a photo in the newspaper.
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,471
- 21,160
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
Sadly , our countries have reject the rule of God and chosen men.
Our countries are not Christian countries.
So this discussion is "natural " and not spiritual.
If this mother is a none Christian she pretty much cannot heal...unless she encounters The Healer.
If she were a Christian mother God's Holy Spirit would be working on and through her...and in time..maybe lots of time...she can be free of the deep pain through the power of Christ.
I see no 'natural' answer.
- Aug 10, 2012
- 6,107
- 7,511
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
The death penalty is all about vengence. It is damaging to families
By the way, my uncle was kidnapped and murdered - his murderer was the last person electrocuted in Nevada.
My grandfather was eaten alive by vengence.
By the way, my uncle was kidnapped and murdered - his murderer was the last person electrocuted in Nevada.
My grandfather was eaten alive by vengence.
Last edited:
Taken
Well-Known Member
LOL
Are all Catholics taught to attempt to disparage others while despertatly trying to defend their "holy father" and religion? Or is that method unique to cyberspace?
How would you deal with it if a rapist comes into your house, rapes your granddaughter and kills her?
Would you just say: "Oh, sorry I'm a Christian, I forgive you."
I would blow his head off with my shotgun.
So, that makes me a bad unforgiving Christian?
How about a foreign nation invading your country?
Would we just sit back and turn the other cheek and forgive them for crossing the border, raping and killing.
Things are not that simple.
How about Paul saying: ""For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying".
Was he right or wrong?
aspen
“"The harvest is plentiful but the workers are few
I am not saying the guy doesn’t deserve to be killed on the spot. I am saying, you will not get any satisfaction from his punishment
Taken
Well-Known Member
Agree with your response.
The KEY is thou shalt not Murder, which is intentionally killing someone who has made no offense.
IMO "Killing" offenders invoking a crime is Scripturally Sanctioned.
God shall cause the Death of every human...
And Against God, every human body has Offended Him...thus justified.
Just saying ... committing an Offence of crime and the offended being a man who can forgive...does not mean avoiding consequences.
God Bless,
Taken
I did NOT have you in mind as a psychotic babbler of paranoid anti-Catholicism. But if the shoe fits...
Are all Calvinists taught to attempt to disparage Catholics while despertatly trying to defend their "Calvinist errors" and religion? Or is that method unique to cyberspace?
Last edited:
An inspired author can't be wrong, just imperfect interpreters.
Short answer:
We are morally obligated to defend human life using force (in your scenario), and death as a last resort.
Long answer:
ARTICLE 5
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority (cops) also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
Paragraph 2266 has not yet been reformatted, but the new text can be found in the links of a previous post.
Personal answer:
I would blow his head off.
side note: St. Michael the ArchAngel is the patron saint of police officers and soldiers
Last edited:
Similar threads
