Death penalty never justifiable, Pope says

Death penalty never justifiable, Pope says

[Anticipating another “more adequate and coherent treatment” of certain topics and/or language in the Catechism? Such as: Update or include the treatment of those topics as in Laudato Si and Amoris Laetitia – or replace “gravely evil language” (LA Lesbian and Gay Ministry director Arthur Fitzmaurice) such as “intrinsic(ally) evil” and “objective(ly) disorder(ed)” with “more pastoral language” (Jesuit priest James Martin)]

Catholic World News – October 11, 2017

In an October 11 address marking the 25th anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis said that “it must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity.”

The Pope mentioned the Catechism‘s teaching on capital punishment as a topic that requires “a more adequate and coherent treatment.” St. John Paul II had already altered the text to say that situations justifying execution today “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” But the Catechism still upholds the traditional Catholic teaching that “does not exclude recourse to the death penalty.”

In more general comments on the Catechism, Pope Francis said that the Church’s teaching “develops and grows because it is aimed at a fulfillment that none can halt.” He said that “doctrine cannot be preserved without allowing it to develop, nor can it be tied to an interpretation that is rigid and immutable without demeaning the working of the Holy Spirit.”

Source: Pope Francis: The dynamic word of God cannot be moth-balled (Vatican Radio)

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/10/11/death-penalty-never-justifiable-pope-says/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

9 comments on “Death penalty never justifiable, Pope says

  1. This could be good for the true doctrine. Bergoglio’s gone full Monty, while Wojtyla only went to 99%. The contrast with true doctrine is now very stark, and it will become apparent that Wojtyla is with Bergoglio and not Aquinas. Some may wake up.

    • Thanks for adding a new phrase to my vocabulary :
      “[the] full Monty,” which Wikipedia defines as …

      a British slang phrase of uncertain origin. It is generally used to mean “everything which is necessary, appropriate or possible; ‘the works’”. Similar North American phrases include the whole kit and caboodle, the whole nine yards, the whole ball of wax, the whole enchilada, the whole shebang, or [going] whole hog.

      The phrase was first identified in print by the OED in the 1980s. Anecdotal evidence exists for earlier usage; the phrase was also used as the name for some fish and chip shops in Manchester during the same period.

      Hypothesized origins of the phrase include:

      1. Field Marshal Montgomery’s preference for a large breakfast, even while on campaign.

      2. A full three-piece suit with waistcoat and a spare pair of trousers from the Leeds-based British tailors Montague Burton. When the British forces were demobilised after the Second World War, they were issued with a “demob suit”. The contract for supplying these suits was partly fulfilled by Montague Burton.

      3. Gamblers’ jargon, meaning the entire kitty or pot, deriving from the card game called monte.

      • You’re welcome. But I had to look it up to make sure it means what I thought it means.

        • I did not include any description of the 1997 movie of that name, whose plot is based on a prurient interpretation of the meaning of that phrase, because AQ is “For Purity and Tradition.”

          Let’s only say that the film’s content could be included under the mantle of Pope Francis’ meta-moral (or rather, -amoral) theology as well as by JP2’s “theology of the body” (or rather “bawdy” – as some call the interpretation of TOB by Chrisopher West , who linked JP2 with Hugh Hefner not only because of their contemporaneity but also for the same inspiration of their work – namely, a reaction to the “puritanical/Manichean approach to sexuality” (Christopher West) .

  2. In more general comments on the Catechism, Pope Francis said that the Church’s teaching “develops and grows because it is aimed at a fulfillment that none can halt.” He said that “doctrine cannot be preserved without allowing it to develop, nor can it be tied to an interpretation that is rigid and immutable without demeaning the working of the Holy Spirit.”

    The only solution, then, is for an online catechism that gets modified with every utterance of His Solonness. It could be like, well, EWTN!

    • Cyprian says:

      The only solution, then, is for an online catechism that gets modified with every utterance of His Solonness.

      Rather “with every utterance of His Sybilliness” (which sounds like “silliness) after the manner of the ancient oracle Sybil, a prophetess (actually, more than one in different times and places) “who uttered divine revelations in a frenzied state” (Wikipedia) or responded to submitted questions with inexplicable riddles or ambiguous answers.

  3. To “develop” means in Modernist terms to change or revise and to a Traditionalist it means to expand or made easier to understand. Thus, the more it is made ambiguous the more difficult it is to understand.

  4. [Don’t tell that to Ven. Pius XII]

    Pope Pius XII: death penalty must be held in all circumstances

    Lisi Sterndorfer via Gloria.TV
    10/12/17

    Francis vs Pius XII on death penalty. Pius XII: validity of the death penalty in principle must be upheld in all historical circumstances:

    null

  5. (for easier reading)
    Medicinal and Vindictive Penalties.

    In Our discourse of 3rd October, 1953, to the Sixth International Congress of Penal Law (Discorsi e Radiornessaggi, Vol. XV, p. 352), and also on the present occasion (Osservatore Romano, 6th-7th December, 1954). we called attention to the fact that many, perhaps the majority, of civil jurists reject vindictive punishment; We noted, however, that perhaps the considerations and arguments adduced as proof were being given a greater importance and force than they have in fact. We also pointed out that the Church in her thcory and practice has maintained this double type of penalty (medicinal and vindictive), and that this is more in agreement with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the aforementioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time, and that a general and abiding validity cannot therefore be attributed to them. The reason is that the words of the sources and of the living teaching power do not refer to the specific content of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of action (cf. particularly Ep. to the Romans, xiii, 4), but rather to the essential foundation itself of penal power and of its immanent finality. This in turn is as little determined by the conditions of time and culture as the nature of man and the human society decreed by nature itself. But, whatever the attitude of positive human law on this problem. it is sufficient for Our present purpose to make clear that in any total or partial remission of punishment, the vindictive penalties (no less than the medicinal) can, and even should, be taken into consideration.

Leave a Reply