RE: Atheism & the Death Penalty.
January 23, 2016 at 3:38 pm
(This post was last modified: January 23, 2016 at 3:40 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(January 23, 2016 at 3:24 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(January 23, 2016 at 2:44 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: For an ex Catholic, you know very little about the Catholic Church if you think our Doctrinal teachings come straight from a literal interpretation of any bible passage.
"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.""
- The Catechism of the Catholic Church
First, the "traditional" teaching of the Catholic Church:
Quote:Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life. (Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328)
Remember, Pope John Paul II "changed his tune" with respect to his Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition (it should be on the front cover, if not, look inside.) Here's the First Edition's "teachings" (emphasis mine):
Quote:2267. If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and 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.
Now, the "updated" teachings (emphasis mine again):
Quote: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 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.”
Welcome to "the Dark Side".
Ok, so why were you refuting my initial comment about the Church's position on the death penalty by quoting a random passage from the bible to try to prove that the Church is ok with it?
EDIT to add: And as you pointed out yourself, the 1st edition of the CCC pretty much says the same exact thing with less words and going into less details. But still the same teaching. So I don't see what your objection is to my statements on this.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh