https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/world/wp/2018/08/02/pope-changes-catholic-church-teaching-to-say-death-penalty-inadmissible/


Pope Francis has changed the catechism of the Catholic Church to take a definitive stance against the death penalty, the Vatican announced, saying it would continue to work to abolish the punishment worldwide.

Previous church teaching left room for capital punishment if it was seen as the only recourse to protect society against a person posing a major threat.

But what about all the people they've slaughtered over the centuries, all in the name of their god?

Yeah.
"Previous church teaching left room for capital punishment if it was seen as the only recourse to protect society against a person posing a major threat."

With "major threat" being defined, in its history, as "not agreeing with the church," or "thinking the earth orbits the sun."

Good for them, I say, to change. Bad for them, I say, to make BS statements like that "previous church teaching" one above, and to try to hide their history of executing "heretics."

What will be interesting will be how the more conservative Catholic media in the U.S. (EWTN, anyone?) react to this changed church teaching. I also want to know if a certain prominent U.S. representative from the portion of a state known for its cheese is on board with this policy and if he will be exed if he is not. And, of course, how does this change in Roman church teaching affect its ongoing negotiations with Protestant groups (minus the Mormons, of course) to create a wholly united Christian union

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism#Recent_efforts_at_reconciliation

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/29/reformation-luther-pope-francis-catholics



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2018 12:29PM by anybody.

At least the Catholics evolve. They certainly should. It was the best thing going up until 500 years ago, although I can think of indigenous populations who would beg to differ.

So the Catholic church won't be executing people any more?

Good for them.

I have always been against the death penalty. It isnt a deterrant,innocent people are executed and it is applied far more against the poor and minorities. Life without parole is enough. Good for Francis.

...inspired, brilliant, awesome!...….all this coming from;

"The Old Argentine Bar Bouncer Turned Holy Man’’

So would the Pope have said it was ok to execute Hitler if he had been captured alive after World War II? That would have been a case where a living Hitler might have been an inspiration to devoted Nazis after the war if he was in a prison somewhere. Would he have deserved the death penalty? And Bin Laden? Just put him in prison somewhere? Is it realistic to conclude the death penalty is never justified?

...how ironic. The Vatican was instrumental in spiriting away many of the top Nazis to South America and other destinations. Providing forged documents, helping to move stolen artwork, gold, many of the "ratlines" out of Europe originated out of Rome. Plenty of references to all this...…..

Pope Frank.....another fake hero of the downtrodden.

Francis is bad because he spirited Nazis out of Europe at the end of World War Two.

Nothing wrong with that logic, surely.

...re-read first sentence. "The Vatican was instrumental". I didn't implicate him with anything the Vatican did during WWII. He was about 9 years old living in Buenos Aires. I just said Frank was a fake hero of the downtrodden...OK? Are we feeling better now?

You criticized Catholic behavior after WWII. Then you denounced Francis. I presumed you saw a logical connection between your two points.

Or was it an intentional non sequitur?

...yes. Right on both points.

A) I don't like the Catholic Church.
B) I don't like Pope Francis.

Understood.

The death penalty should be decided on an individual basis, and not by the vatican.

There are people who were opposed to the death penalty until someone they loved was murdered heinously. Those people have decided for their loved ones, the death penalty would be appropriate for their killers.

Although I feel it's too kind of a punishment. The killer still gets off too easy with usually a lethal injection. While the victims families have a lifetime of suffering left at their hands.

A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole would be a more appropriate sentence for them IMO. That way let them suffer with the loss of personal freedom and isolation from society, where they belong.

Exactly, and if they are later found innocent it can stil be rectified.

I wonder what Jorge Mario Bergoglio would think of this. If we could all remember the priests that he ratted out during the Dirty War or people who just went missing, never to be found again on his watch.

Bergoglio would probably disagree with Francis on this point.

The Catholic church has been working toward a consistent "pro life" policy, meaning that the church is against abortion, against assisted suicide, and against the death penalty. I don't agree with the church in every particular in this regard, but I will admit that church authorities are trying their best to achieve that consistent outlook in church policy.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2018 05:25PM by summer.

I would like to see Pope Francis decree that any Roman Catholic who is involved in bringing about the death penalty for an individual will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Excommunication is not really a Catholic thing. Yes, it happens *sometimes.* But not very often. I never personally knew a member who was excommunicated, and neither did any of my far-flung family members.

commongentile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would like to see Pope Francis decree that any
> Roman Catholic who is involved in bringing about
> the death penalty for an individual will be
> excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

I am personally opposed to the Death Penalty for several reasons. But one reason I posted the above is that sometimes I think about what it is like for someone with strong convictions about something to come up against a contrary decree of an authoritarian figure or organization that person is also committed to. An example that comes to mind is back in 1978, right after President Kimball announced the revelation that persons of African descent could now hold the priesthood, I visited a returned missionary friend of mine in Idaho. We were there in their family home and I excitedly brought up President Kimball's new revelation. The RM's dad was obviously very troubled by it, and said, "I think the Lord knew what he was doing when he put black hides on some of his children!" This did not involve excommunication, of course, but it was clearly a struggle as to whether he would stick to his prior convictions on the matter or accept the authority of the Mormon Prophet.

If Pope Francis did make the decree I mentioned above, I wonder how, for instance, a Supreme Court Justice who is firmly committed to the Death Penalty and also an extremely devout Catholic respond? Would he change his views on the Death Penalty in deference to the Catholic Church, or would he retain his present beliefs, even in the face of excommunication from his beloved Church?

>>If Pope Francis did make the decree I mentioned above, I wonder how, for instance, a Supreme Court Justice who is firmly committed to the Death Penalty and also an extremely devout Catholic respond? Would he change his views on the Death Penalty in deference to the Catholic Church, or would he retain his present beliefs, even in the face of excommunication from his beloved Church?

Catholics for the most part are not followers. They carefully consider what the Pope says and then make up their own minds. Some will follow the Pope's counsel, and some will not. It is acceptable within the faith to disagree with the Pope or other church leaders. My family members did it all the time. Even professed religious (priests, nuns, etc.) will not always agree with the Pope.

IMO it is one of the great strengths of the Catholic church. It encourages moral thinking in a way that sometimes diverges from official church policy or doctrine.

There was a lot of worry when John Kennedy was running for president that he would be under the Pope's thumb. Catholics knew better, but it took the rest of the country some time to figure that out.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Catholics for the most part are not followers.
> They carefully consider what the Pope says and
> then make up their own minds. Some will follow the
> Pope's counsel, and some will not. It is
> acceptable within the faith to disagree with the
> Pope or other church leaders.

Summer,

What about the doctrine of Papal Infallibility? But perhaps that doctrine is a thing of the past and I'm not up-to-date on Catholic doctrines and practices.

>>What about the doctrine of Papal Infallibility? But perhaps that doctrine is a thing of the past and I'm not up-to-date on Catholic doctrines and practices.

The doctrine of papal infallibility is probably the most misunderstood thing about the faith. It does NOT mean that everything the Pope says is infallible. It means that only rarely, and under *very limited circumstances* the Pope is exempt from error.

Wiki states, and I agree, that "the Catholic Church does not teach that the pope is infallible in everything he says; official invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare." The Wiki article linked below lists only seven clear instances where papal infallibility has been invoked since the year 449 A.D.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

So to answer your question, everything else the Pope says is pretty much considered by Catholics to be guidance and advice (from someone they hopefully respect.)

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The doctrine of papal infallibility is probably
> the most misunderstood thing about the faith. It
> does NOT mean that everything the Pope says is
> infallible. It means that only rarely, and under
> *very limited circumstances* the Pope is exempt
> from error.
>
> So to answer your question, everything else the
> Pope says is pretty much considered by Catholics
> to be guidance and advice (from someone they
> hopefully respect.)

I wonder how this could be compared with the Mormon President/Prophet. Sometimes one hears people say that certain Mormon prophets were only speaking as men with certain pronouncements. But on the other hand, one hears talk of Mormons saying they would do any outlandish thing if the Prophet decreed it. Or, does the Mormon Prophet only have authority if he is receiving an "official" revelation that he says is coming straight from Heavenly Father?

Papal Infallibility has been invoked a total of two times in history. Both times were about the status of the Virgin Mary and had nothing to do with everyday or practical matters. I am sure there are Catholics who disagree even on these two issues.

Two points, Summer.

First, I agree that getting people to think about morality is what really matters. Any religion or ideology that does that is making a positive contribution (although other aspects of the system of thought may result in a net negative).

Second, I don't think most Catholics in the developed world pay much attention to what the Pope says. In the rich countries, with the partial exception of Iberia and some of East Central Europe, Catholicism fares about as well as the other religions and hence has lost a lot of influence.

Does that sound mistaken?

I think the church has influence in first world countries insofar as people respect the Pope. Some popes generate respect, some not so much. I think that Francis is generally respected.

The church has a history of throwing its weight around in heavily Catholic countries, i.e. in Ireland with regard to abortion laws, and in Brazil with regard to divorce laws. But that ability to influence is on the wane.

The Pope's pronouncements likely carry greater weight in third world countries. But even there you have lots of free thinkers, such as with the Liberation Theology movement in South America.

"Catholics for the most part are not followers. They carefully consider what the Pope says and then make up their own minds. Some will follow the Pope's counsel, and some will not. It is acceptable within the faith to disagree with the Pope or other church leaders. My family members did it all the time. Even professed religious (priests, nuns, etc.) will not always agree with the Pope."

This has definitely been my experience in my family. My father was a devout Catholic, but was never shy about disagreements he had with the Pope all the way down to the local priests. Religious arguments he had with two of his brothers, who were priests, are legend in my family. Likewise, my priestly uncles were also very vocal about their disagreements with church doctrine and policy. The sermons by individual priests would often run the gamut within accepted parameters, which seemed quite broad while I was still attending church.

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Catholics for the most part are not followers.
> They carefully consider what the Pope says and
> then make up their own minds. Some will follow the
> Pope's counsel, and some will not. It is
> acceptable within the faith to disagree with the
> Pope or other church leaders. My family members
> did it all the time. Even professed religious
> (priests, nuns, etc.) will not always agree with
> the Pope."
>
> This has definitely been my experience in my
> family. My father was a devout Catholic, but was
> never shy about disagreements he had with the Pope
> all the way down to the local priests. Religious
> arguments he had with two of his brothers, who
> were priests, are legend in my family. Likewise,
> my priestly uncles were also very vocal about
> their disagreements with church doctrine and
> policy. The sermons by individual priests would
> often run the gamut within accepted parameters,
> which seemed quite broad while I was still
> attending church.


Dialogue is very present in Catholicism without fear of reprisal or excommunication. Or shunning or anything else.

It really is nothing like Mormonism.

commongentile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would like to see Pope Francis decree that any
> Roman Catholic who is involved in bringing about
> the death penalty for an individual will be
> excommunicated from the Catholic Church.


Excommunication in Catholicism is not like Mormonism. An excommunicated Catholic is still a Catholic.

And I'd like Francis to decree that excommunication is stupid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

My biggest complaint with Francis in almost everything he does is that he talks to high ideals without addressing the reasons why Catholicism will struggle to accept those high ideals.


Plainly put, I fucking hate platitudes.

What-about, blood lust, and Hitler comparison all in the same thread, and all because the man calls for humane treatment of the least of his brothers.

Agreed.

I sometimes wonder if that's his main point.