Bishops were among the first to sign the ‘National Catholic Pledge to End the Death Penalty’ at the US bishops’ headquarters building on May 9.
Each person taking the pledge promises to educate, advocate and pray for an end to capital punishment.
“All Christians and people of goodwill are thus called today to fight not only for the abolition of the death penalty, whether legal or illegal, and in all its forms, but also in order to improve prison conditions, with respect for the human dignity of the people deprived of their freedom,” Pope Francis has said. This quotation kicks off the pledge.
The pledge drive is organised by the Catholic Mobilizing Network.
“The death penalty represents a failure of our society to fulfill the demands of human dignity, as evidenced by the 159 people and counting who have been exonerated due to their innocence since 1973,” the organisation says on the pledge sheet following space for someone’s signature.
Quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the network added, “The death penalty is not needed to maintain public safety, punishment must ‘correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and (be) more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.’”
Full story at The Catholic Herald.
Good for the bishops taking action.
It is a start to go public with “SOMETHING” outside of the political. Abortion, Same Sex Attraction, how about sin and the existence of Hell in the same sentence.
The inconsistent application of the death penalty in this country is a terrible and gross injustice. The incarceration and execution of innocent people necessitates this stance by the Bishops. And it is consistent with the Bishops’ prolife policies and programs.
George,
An inconsistent application of the law is not a valid reason for getting rid of a law. If this were the case, we would have to revoke most of our laws. Rather, the solution is to enforce the law equally.
By the way, i’m against the death penalty, but your argument is not the reason for my view.
Pray tell, when will the Bishops take such a public stand (1) against abortion in all its grisly forms, (2) against homosexual marriage, (3) against euthanasia, (4) against shariah law as being in direct conflict with our nation’s founding documents, (5) against those politicians proclaiming to be Catholic who support these
dastardly acts. I’m not holding my breath, sadly!
Killing adults, through a governmental system that has proven time and time again to make mistakes, is hardly on the same moral level as “homosexual marriage”, or some claimed “shariah law” which is not on the table anywhere in the US and so cannot even be one of the “dastardly acts” you claim Catholic politicians supposedly support.
Since you support the notion of “gay marriage” you have no legitimacy on this site to make such statements
Lou: pray tell. Where, in our great country, has shariah law been implemented? Many people would like to know!
Well, two doctors were just arrested in two different states for genital mutilation of girls. These are not the first arrests for such crimes either. Anyone can just google it. The doctor and his wife who were arrested for performing genital mutilations on girls were Muslims from India. Another doctor was arrested previously. I am not sure of that doctor’s ethnic group. The reason I mention this is that many Muslims often say that this type of mutilation is only done in Africa, but that seems to be nonsense.
Never understood the exegesis tht has been used to establish the doctrinal position of opposing capital punishment. Jesus never questioned the authority of the Roman state in judging and executing him, just that he was innocent of the charges.
WM: You don’t take “Render unto Caesar…Render unto God” to be a foreshadowing of the passion and an incrimination of civil capital punishment?
No, as a matter of fact the “render to Caesar…” indicates exactly the opposite, recognizing the legitimacy of the state. Re catechism and capital punishment see section 2867. I believe u erred in making the statement, it is allowed.
Read your Catechism.
William,
Good point. But please note that the Church doesn’t condemn capital punishment in all cases
This is an incorrect statement from Steve Seitz: As long as society has other means to protect itself from a capital criminal (as our society does as judged by all the pontiffs since John Paul II), the Magisterium indeed condemns capital punishment IN ALL CASES. This is why all supreme pontiffs since John Paul II have called for an END to the death penalty.
Jon,
My statement is correct and your reply to me reinforces this. You added a qualifier which means that there are cases when capital punishment is permissible.
Therefore, since capital punishment is not universally condemned, William will not find a good exegesis condemning capital punishment in the bible.
Steve Seitz is wrong. The fact that popes since John Paul II have called for the ABOLITION of the death penalty proves that the statement that the Church “doesn’t condemn capital punishment in all cases” is inaccurate because it is INCONSISTENT with the call of the Holy Father.
“The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. . . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” —Pope John Paul II…
Jon,
I think you’re becoming incoherent. In your first reply to me, you stated Catholic doctrine but then turned against it. Let me be very direct.
Catholic doctrine does not condemn capital punishment. However, Pope John Paul stated that this is true only if society has other means with which to protect itself from murders (e.g. the wealthy countries of the West have other such means).
This is Catholic doctrine regardless of any speech given by any pope. What was the context of JPII’s speech? To whom did he give it? It sounded like he was giving a plea/opinion rather than stating Catholic doctrine.
Steve Seitz, on the contrary I am not incoherent because the Church isn’t incoherent in her teaching on this matter of the death penalty. The Pope is entrusted with the ministry of expounding on the doctrines of the Church as guided by Scripture and Tradition. When John Paul II plainly taught the cruelty of the death penalty, condemned it, and called for its abolition, he is expounding the Church’s doctrine, he was NOT teaching anything contrary to it. If you’re going to throw the concept of “doctrine” note that Aquinas himself gives one reason for why a sinner or evil-doer (criminal) may be executed, and that is to protect the rest of society (ST II-II, q 64). John Paul II’s teaching expounds on this doctrine. The death penalty…
folks is NOT an “intrinsic good.” The Church is VERY CLEAR in her CONDEMNATION of the death penalty in our time, based on doctrine, based on Aquinas, based on Tradition. Seitz’s notion is that Catholic doctrine on the death penalty says one thing, but John Paul merely added a caveat. WRONG! This is a totally wrong understanding of the magisterium of Pope St. John Paul II, a deficient understanding of the ministry of the Magisterium and of the popes’ in particular.
“Dear brothers and sisters, the time has come to banish once and for all from the continent every attack against life. No more violence, terrorism and drug-trafficking! No more torture or other forms of abuse! There must be an end to the unnecessary recourse to the…
death penalty!” Pope John Paul II’s homily at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico City on Saturday, 23 January 1999. Listen to the living Magisterium! Respect life!
Jon,
I’ll begin with several questions and end with a statement:
You’re correct that the death penalty is not an intrinsic good. But neither is Just War Theory or killing in self-defense? Does the Church also condemn these actions?
Since the Church before JPII taught that the death penalty was permissible, did JPII overturn this area of moral law or did he merely attempt to develop and/or clarify it?
Lastly, Catechism section 2257 proves my point that, even today, there are cases where the death penalty can be morally permissible. I think this wraps up this discussion.
Steve Seitz: Catechism #2257 says nothing about the death penalty (this is a true instance of incoherence indeed). Let me help you out here. The traditional teaching of the Church on the death penalty (the doctrine, as you referred to it) is articulated in Catechism #2267 that there is “recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” What John Paul II taught is that the death penalty in our time is NOT the only practicable way: therefore it is condemned, that it must be abolished, meaning that there can be no case in which the Church permits its use in our time while there are other means to protect society. Your statement that the…
“Church DOESN’T condemn capital punishment in all cases” is in error because the plain truth is that the Church DOES condemn it in all cases in our time. Unfortunately, in trying to defend yourself you have fallen into other errors, namely the notion that Catholic doctrine is one thing “regardless of any speech given by any pope.” This is erroneous. As if Pope St. John Paul II taught anything contrary to the Church’s doctrine.
Jon,
I see that you neither answered my questions nor noticed that Section 2257 was a typo of 2267. Instead of acting with class, you made the silly claim of incoherence. This shouldn’t be necessary, but let me quote from Section 2267:
“the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty . . . If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means. . . [T]he cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'”
Therefore, according to the Catechism, there are cases where the death penalty is permissible. As you said to William, you…
Steve Seitz: if you are maintaining that your position reflects the teaching of the Church on the matter at hand, then you are rendering/portraying the same teaching of the Church as INCOHERENT (you were the first to use this word in this thread, not me). Steve Seitz, why would the American bishops sign this National Catholic Pledge to End the Death Penalty if “there are cases where the death penalty is permissible” in our time? INCOHERENT! Why would the Holy Father from John Paul II onward teach and urge the abolition of the death penalty then “there are cases where it is permissible?” Prima facie, Steve Seitz, your position is the one that is incoherent.
As for your questions: I found your first and second questions…
merely rhetorical. And as for third, I absolutely addressed it in my last post.
“It cannot be over emphasized that the right to life must be recognized in all its fullness…In this context I joyfully greet the initiative by which Mexico abolished the death penalty in 2005, and the recent measures adopted by some Mexican states to protect human life from its beginnings. These resolute moves in such a fundamental question should be an emblem of your homeland, one of which it can be justly proud”. Pope Benedict XVI to the new Mexican ambassador to the Holy See on July 10, 2009. Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Jon,
I think I’ve found the source of our disagreement: you’re confusing Church teaching with opinion.
CCC Section 2267 is Church teaching on the issue which allows for conditional use of the death penalty. How people apply this teaching [including popes and bishops] is fallible and opinion. This is why good, faithful Catholics can be either Republican or Democrat. And yes, this includes the pope, himself, unless you feel he’s infallible 24/7.
Steve Seitz is WRONG! His opinion is in direct contradiction to Lumen Gentium #25 which teaches that “For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present: he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.” Folks, when the Pope delivers a homily, gives a formal speech, pens an encyclical or an exhortation (all of which John Paul did when he strongly and consistently called for the abolition of the death penalty), HE IS EXPOUNDING DOCTRINE and is NOT proffering mere “personal opinion.” John Paul–as the Supreme Pontiff–expounded on Catechism 2267 when he judged that…
there are now other means to protect society from a capital criminal short of executing him and that therefore the death penalty must end. Steve Seitz is grossly mistaken.
Jon,
I noticed that you like to say that people are wrong.
I think you’re misquoting Lumen Gentium. It’s one thing to teach moral doctrine: it’s quite another to apply it in specific, real world cases. If you’re correct, there can be ONLY ONE Catholic opinion for every real world situation.
Since most American bishops are Democrats, are you saying that all faithful Catholics have to be Democrats?
On the contrary Steve Seitz: I do not like saying that people are wrong. But the truth must be defended, especially the truth about the Church’s teaching about the death penalty, because there are many people such as yourself who intentionally or not misconstrue the Church’s teaching. And yes, you are WRONG, again! How so? Lumen Gentium is not misquoted in any way here. The moral teachings of the Church are MEANT to be applied to specific cases; otherwise, what’s the use of having moral teachings at all! There is indeed, currently, ONE Catholic legitimate teaching on this matter. And that teaching is the one articulated by the Magisterium: that the death penalty is cruel and unnecessary and must be abolished.
Lou, u asked, EEOC v. Aberrcrombie and Fitch, read the SCOTUS decision. The Supreme court ruled that wearing hijab by Mislimas is a religious obligation and MUST be accommodated. Just one example of Shari’a enforcement
This is not, William, enforcement of Sharia law. It is enforcement of U.S. civil law.
Waste of time and effort. Why don’t the bishops devote their attention to matters of the Catholic Faith?
This is a matter of Catholic faith.
Shariah has not been “officially” implemented anywhere as yet BUT there have been law suits
settled in favor of muslim men against their wives with the (horrible) judge citing sharia law as the basis for his decision. Creeping Islamization, called civilization jihad, must be stopped before it spreads. CAIR’s head man in our country has verbally stated that Islam is here to become the dominant religion. That’s their goal
in their own words……so take heed.
When I go shopping in some cities next to me, I often see Muslim women with full face coverings. No burqa’s so far, just full face coverings. They certainly should not be driving if they are not allowed to show their faces for driver’s license pictures as every driver has the right to be able to identify someone who is driving a car that hits them or causes an accident. Pretty soon the Muslim extremists will be saying that women should not be driving as most or all do not in their countries. Women’s face coverings are a good way to hide criminal activity, too, just as ski masks can be.
Over 900,000 babes aborted in 2016; 20 murderers duly executed. Priorities gentlemen?