The Death Penalty: Is the Church For or Against it? w/ Fr. Gregory Pine, OP

In this segment, Fr. Gregory discusses the Death Penalty and what the Church teaches about it (and how that teaching has changed over time).
🔴 PRE-ORDER FR. GREGORY'S NEW BOOK, "PRUDENCE": www.amazon.com...
🔴 GODSPLAINING SUMMER RETREATS: godsplaining.o...
🔴 SPONSORS
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
Exodus 90: Exoduslent.com/Matt
🔴 GIVING
Patreon or Directly: pintswithaquin...
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer co-producer of the show.
🔴 LINKS
Website: pintswithaquin...
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
🔴 SOCIAL
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
Gab: gab.com/mattfradd

[@oscarcortez9190]

I’m from Texas and I’m in law enforcement. In the late 2000’s a assassin for the cartel committed a murder here state side. My police department investigated the case and issued the warrant. The murderers story is quite impressive. In short he was a bad man. He was caught, convicted, and sentenced to life. He swore revenge on all who betrayed him. It took over 15 years to escape prison by stabbing a guard. On his rampage he murdered again and took four innocent lives. He led law enforcement in a chase which ended in a shoot out. All this was done in a modern society, with modern technology. If this man would have been given the death penalty, those four innocent lives would still be here. When your detached from the streets, it’s easy to walk around and say love and peace, but for those who hunt the wicked we realize something that most won’t accept. Some people just don’t want salvation, some people just want to see the world burn at others expense.

[@radar4545]

The ones that think the death penalty is wrong are the same ones that will tell me that I'm sick for watching real crime, not like I enjoy it, but I will keep sending these people videos and news stories. Four children and their grandfather were found murdered at the family's ranch in Centerville tx, Gonzalo Lopez was serving a life sentence for a capital murder in Hidalgo and an attempted capital murder in Webb County escaped while being transported from Gatesville to Huntsville for a medical appointment.

[@oscarcortez9190]

@@radar4545 that’s the one I was talking about. My agency worked the original case

[@radar4545]

@@oscarcortez9190 I knew it was the one you were talking about, I did not know his background other than he murdered someone and another attempted murder until I read what you wrote.. Was the first murder a criminal or an innocent person?

[@oscarcortez9190]

@@radar4545 he was a crook, stole from the cartel and it put a automatic price on his head

[@Will-ip8og]

This makes sense for the justification that it is predicated on (the defense of society), however you neglect the principal of retributive justice, in that the death penalty may be used not for the defensive of society but because the punishment itself is just for the crime. This justification for the death penalty (retribution) seems to be the reason cited for it's used up until only recently. It seems that the Church fathers, the old and new testament, previous Popes, and the universal and ordinary Magisterium support it's use in this way.

[@ctarabocchia]

Thank you Will for raising this important distinction that none of those explaining what Pope Francis has done seem to want to tackle. Michael Lofton over at Reason and Theology channel had a similar video and when I left a comment asking for clarification on retributive justice, he simply replied with a time stamp to his video and when I watched that portion again, I did not see anything new that clarified the matter. Here is the link to the video and my comment (it is the first highlighted comment) for those that may be interested. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bWGaYZKBnMqYbqs&lc=UgyzzesY8uOjKMepk494AaABAg

I think Christ's sacrifice on the Cross has undermined any need for retribution. Every murder in history to the present and in the future has been paid for in Christ's blood; as such there is no need to kill murderers who properly repent for the sake of justice when instead they can be forgiven, or put in an encarceration that ideally would allow time for repentance and atonement. The only compelling argument is the public safety one. Although I do believe that a truly repentant murderer would accept the death penalty because it is truly what he deserves. Just like St. Dimas accepted that he was justly sentenced to death. I just think that Christ sacrifice makes that deserved death sentence forgivable.

[@Will-ip8og]

@ Interesting, I disagree in part because I don't see how Christ's sacrifice removes the responsibility of the government, as stated in Romans, to punish evil (possibly with the sword). I also don't see how forgiveness nessisarily manifests in the elimination of temporal punishment. Regardless, I think this discussion about retribution should be at least addressed.

[@timmysand08]

@ If Christ's sacrifice on the cross has undermined any need for retribution, then doesn't that mean that serial killers, terrorists, and child rapists shouldn't be punished at all? Should they perhaps have a nice cozy life so long as they are removed from society? Separately, I think there is as argument to be made that the death penalty makes a criminal more likely to repent than a long prison sentence.

[@nottt5203]

The Catechism does not recognize retributive justice as a legitimate justification for recourse to the death penalty

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

Fr. Pine is great.

[@adrianavila7164]

🙌

[@thomasjorge4734]

Modernist Priests long ago abandoned Theology for Psychology.

[@canalettov]

You're being too kind by saying psychology. They abandoned it for Freudian psychoanalysis 😕

[@jupiterinaries6150]

Or incarnating Christ into the field of psychology.

[@SUZMIC1]

Thank you Father for explaining this subject. I’ve heard and tend to side with older reasons why the death penalty is good for the condemned in allowing them time to repent and also how God in the OT had the Israelites kill their enemies etc. Another piece of the picture perhaps to study into. 🙏🏼God keep you!!

[@kevinwelfel313]

It has been my observation that even those states who exercise their legitimate rights in capital punishment still regard the dignity of the condemned and protects their right to life. They are charged to protect the life of that individual from attack and premature death until the moment the state executes on their judgement at a prescribed date/time.

[@CatholicK5357]

The problem with this modern understanding of the death penalty is that it puts aside crucial aspects of traditional Catholic teaching on the matter. The purpose of the death penalty by the state is not primarily to execute a criminal because of not having the means to support him. The purpose is to make reparation for his sins. It has to do with Abel's blood crying out to God for vengeance. In other words, if we as a society don't give proper punishment for crimes then we are asking for God to chastise us to make up for the difference. That is not to say that mercy cannot be shown in the form of pardon. But mercy to be truly appreciated only happens when someone understands the depths of what he is being forgiven for. If the death penalty is off the table it becomes a false-mercy. It ignores the justice required by the victims. Certain crimes destroy the criminal's right to life, because the reparation for the taking away those rights to life from the innocent souls are more important. The stepping away from the death penalty for criminals while simultaneously promoting death for the innocent (unborn and elderly or anyone suffering) just shows the extreme confusion that our society is in. The Catholic Church needs to stick with her unchanging doctrines and not fall into the world's traps. These new explanations of the death penalty are not a true development of doctrine, but rather a rupture. There is another reason why it is a false mercy. We know from statistics that when psychopaths are put together in community (prison), they become worse. We are unjustly using tax money to keep murderers alive in an environment that makes them worse than before they entered. It is actually sickening.

[@rhettcovington9131]

As someone who as worked in a prison system for 30 years, the information you reported on psychopaths getting worse is new to me. In some ways, all prisoners may get worse, but if provided treatment, education, spiritual guidance, many if not most, get better. Regarding your statements about “false-mercy”, this is also a new term for me. Mercy is given by the state and by the victims to those not deserving it and it is not predicated on the one receiving mercy from needing to ask for it. Another issue I have with your stance is that of what constitutes justice. Which crimes “destroy a criminal’s right to life” and who decides that? You say that if the death penalty is off the table, it “ignores the justice required by the victims”. How do we decide what constitutes that justice? In some nations that don’t have the death penalty, the victims understand and accept that justice is served by imprisonment. Here is another quandary to think about. If a psychopath shoots a person point blank with the full intent to kill that person, but because of chance circumstances and/or great medical care, the victim does not die, we as a society take the death penalty off the table. We then assign a number of years to that crime as justice and we accept that. My point is that each state and each country develops a different understanding of what constitutes “justice” for a crime. I personally oppose the death penalty because it takes a life created in the image and likeness of God and takes away from that person the possibility of repenting of their crime and entering heaven. So in supporting the death penalty, we are not only depriving a person of life in this world, but of eternal life with God in heaven. This for me is something that should only be done in the most extreme cases when we have no other option.

[@CatholicK5357]

@@rhettcovington9131 Well it's good that you have learned two new things. If you don't believe me I can certainly reference studies and definitions. If you take an issue with what I said, then you take issue it seems with the traditional Catholic teaching on the matter. I believe what the Catechism of Trent says on the matter. Catholic teaching does not change, and so any attempt to "evolve" doctrine is really just a rupture. Here are some quotes from several sound Popes, as well as the Catechism: Innocent I "The first Pope to take a stand in favor of the death penalty was Innocent I in the year 405. In response to a query from the Bishop of Toulouse, Pope Innocent I based his position on Paul’s Letter to the Romans. He wrote: It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority. (Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495) Innocent III The secular power can without mortal sin carry out a sentence of death, provided it proceeds in imposing the penalty not from hatred but with judgment, not carelessly but with due solicitude. (Innocent III, DS 795/425) Pius XII 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) Catechism of the Council of Trent The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives. In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). (Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)" Your premise that the death penalty deprives people of eternal life is faulty. I can provide several sermons and articles to you, if you wish, which show that the Catholic use of the death penalty brought many hardened criminals to repentance (something that facing death often does), and that those who are not moved to penance upon death will not be led in most cases to God by prolonging their life. There are several saints, and one in particular, who had a 100% success rate in converting those on death row - and even was able to cause the falsely accused to rejoice in their death. There are two possibilities. Either there are two opposing doctrines which are both Catholic and okay to believe. Or else one of them is a rupture. If one of them is a rupture, it would have to be the new teaching since nothing is more sound than the Catechism of Trent, since it was based entirely off of a dogmatic council.

[@adamaj74]

From CCC 2067, "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."

[@CatholicK5357]

@@adamaj74 Is that the original or the extremely recently updated version? That is why I prefer the older catechisms rather than ones that think it necessary to "update" 2000 years of Church teaching. As I said before, when you have two catechisms saying something different and popes that support either side, there are two possibilities. It is either the case that both teachings are okay to be believed by a Catholic, or that one of the teachings is a rupture. When two catechisms oppose each other on an issue, I always side with Trent, since that is based on a dogmatic council, and not on the changing whims of modern popes who wish to pander to the world. Another way that I could put it, is that good catechisms provide references to the teachings of the Church Fathers to show that it is not just being pulled out of thin air. When that is absent, it is concerning. For example, I would not trust anything from the notorious Dutch catechism.

[@adamaj74]

​@@CatholicK5357 It's the most recent, up to date CCC. All the catechisms have added to and changed or updated previous ones over the history of the Church. There is no contradiction, just a better understanding. Do you really think Pope Francis and everyone else working, reporting, and advising him aren't aware of past catechisms and what past Pope's, clergy, theologians and church fathers said and wrote? Of course they do. Pope Francis says himself that circumstances and our understanding have changed greatly over the last 2000 years and the Church's teaching on the death penalty must change with it. Here is paragraph 2267: "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”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide." www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20180801_catechismo-penadimorte_en.html As Catholics, our allegience is to the current Pope, the current Church and its teachings. I'm sure you could find lots of things that past Popes and various clergy have disagreed on and taught differently than we do now. Many Popes, including the last few, have been slowly pointing the Church toward abolishing the death penalty. For example: "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...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 Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999 Here is a link to the official USCCB page about the Church's official anti-death penalty position: www.usccb.org/resources/churchs-anti-death-penalty-position And, "Pope Francis’ October 3, 2020 encyclical, entitled Fratelli Tutti, rejected capital punishment as a 'false answer that ultimately does no more than introduce new elements of destruction in the fabric of national and global society.' Citing centuries of death-penalty opposition by leading Catholic scholars and clergy and calling attention to the possibility of judicial error and the misuse of capital punishment as a tool of persecution by autocratic regimes, Francis called upon 'all Christians and people of good will' to work for 'the abolition of the death penalty, legal or illegal, in all its forms.' The encyclical, which commands the highest authority of any published Catholic document, has officially put the abolition of the death penalty in the forefront of Catholic teaching." deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/new-papal-encyclical-tells-catholics-there-is-no-stepping-back-from-opposition-to-death-penalty

[@matthewsinger6397]

The death penalty is about justice. If you murder out of hatred or worse, indifference, then the only way it can be made right is if you’re put to death. You don’t have a right to life at that point. Pro life is about protecting the innocent who cannot protect themselves and should never be intertwined into the death penalty conversation because again, it’s about justice.

[@matthewsinger6397]

@@john_g_henderson I think your society can decide that. Like the death penalty, society and your community decides wether that life should be taken, if it’s taken in a just way. The Bible supports it and the pope can’t make up his own things. Also just because the pope says something doesn’t mean Catholics have to abide by or agree.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

American spotted

[@Patrick-tn7pb]

@@matthewsinger6397 Jesus said "let him without sin cast the first stone" How then can you before the death penalty; are you without sin?

[@nickdavies3176]

@@Patrick-tn7pb The church has supported the death penalty in the past. And the end that government is ordered towards is justice. Government also has other ends but it’s primary end is to give what is due to its citizens. If this is the case I think the question becomes “Are there crimes that are so destructive that the guilty party deserves death?”

[@matthewsinger6397]

@@john_g_henderson you must have killed someone then, since you’re a feverish supporter of murder, and don’t believe that there’s any justification for giving someone murdered, any type of justice?

[@pepperorchid]

Love is exponential not finite. Pie gets bigger with each child and there is more love for everyone.

[@jamesorrock8897]

I find myself pining for more great content from Fr Gregory 👌

[@StudentsBunnyHome]

Wonderful video!!! I love his conferences! Many congratulations Fr. Pine!!!!! 👏🏻🔥🥊

[@vince6314]

It's a nuanced topic and one that might be worthy of a more elaborate discussion. One aspect beside that mentioned in the comments about retributive justice is also as a deterrent which is also a form of self defence for future criminals thinking of committing similar actions against the body politic.

[@BlessedisShe]

Thank you for sharing, Fr. Pine!

[@joejackson6205]

Part of what I disagree with the current teachings on Capital/Corporal punishment, is that it totally ignores the rights of victims and their loved ones. Yes, vengence is Gods, but he normally raises up governments to exact His vengence to maintain a peaceful and orderly society. To ignore Gods vengence, and the rights of the harmed, is to say to the criminal element, go ahead and commit crimes all you want, the worst that will happen is the state may lock you away for awhile, with free food and a bed. To some people this is as good as winning the lottery, so the do what is happening in cities and states where prosecutors wont do their jobs.

[@haydongonzalez-dyer2727]

I need more Pine in my life

[@itinerantpatriot1196]

I am against the death penalty because I believe in the power of redemption.

[@tMatt5M]

Those on death row have a much higher chance of repenting and thus a greater chance at salvation. Keeping an evil person alive statistically is worse off for ones soul.

[@tafazzi-on-discord]

@@tMatt5M I don't think that's true

[@tMatt5M]

@@tafazzi-on-discord It is true. Think about those who aren't on death row, but have a terminal illness. Do you think they are more likely to repent of their sins and to prepare for death compared to someone who is living without a terminal illness, just going through day to day life?

[@sandstorm7768]

Agreed 100%. Perhaps Saint Paul deserved to die for his cruelty towards Christians, but if he had not converted, he would not have spread the word of God as far as it was, and he wouldn't have written all his beautiful epistles that comprise a large portion of the New Testament!!

[@sandstorm7768]

@@tMatt5M I see what you mean, yet also highly disagree with it. It is true that there are stories of criminals repenting before their deaths. Case in point: Jefferey Dahmer had meetings with a pastor while in prison talking about how he wanted to commit suicide, but also wanting to do God's will more. He was even baptisted! I was astounded when I heard that story. While it's true that great good can come out of great suffering, it is an abhorrent cruelty to force that onto people expecting them to change. Simply put, we cannot threaten people to make them beg and force their conversion! That's an egregious breech of their free will and an excuse to commit evil. God calls us to gentleness when converting others (which is different from passivity). While God can use grave situations for a greater good (like Joseph with the coat of colors being sold into slavery), it's a massive issue of pride, self-righteousness, and playing God to use the death penalty to intentionally force faith out of people. It's frankly disgusting when you lay it out like that.

[@whateverman13]

I thought thee death penalty was the prerogative of the state to issue justice. Self-defense is secondary to the argument.

[@benstarnes2048]

The comments made in this video overlook: 1- the belief that the death penalty is a just punishment for certain criminals regardless of society’s ability to support the malefactor 2- the potential that John Paul II and Pope Francis were prudentially wrong to begin reversing Church teaching on the death penalty. For instance, if a future pope said “The death penalty is a just punishment for the aggressor. Just societies should use the death penalty to protect their citizens and for the spiritual goods of the guilty.”, wouldn’t the Catholic Church be charged to pay heed? 3- the fact that the spiritual good of malefactors deserving of the death penalty is best served BY being sentenced to death rather than life imprisonment. There was a Catholic religious order charged with helping convert criminals sentenced to death, and they had a near 100% success rate. I believe St. Thomas Aquinas also mentions how the spiritual good of the criminal is best served by knowing the day and hour he is to die, versus a life imprisonment when the moment of death is unknown. I hope there is a follow up video mentioning these things, because this video leaves a lot to be desired and is actually quite misleading, especially regarding the “spiritual good” of malefactors.

[@michaeldulman5487]

1. Fair. 2. Yes. 3. Perhaps, but it seems speculative and based on anecdotal evidence. I think one thing to keep in mind that a lot of people maybe misunderstand (though given how you referred to this decision in terms of prudence, you yourself understand) is that saying the death penalty is inadmissible is not a change in fundamental moral teaching, but a change in how the Church says the teaching should be applied. In court, certain evidence may be deemed admissible or inadmissible. That is not to said evidence deemed inadmissible is without value, but the prudential decision has been made that it should not be used as evidence in a court of law. Similarly, while the fundamental teaching on the death penalty (as a legitimate right of the state to impose) remains unchanged, the Church is instructing the state that circumstances today generally do not justify its use and that it is better for the salvation of souls, as things currently stand, to refrain from using it. Catholics are bound to give obedient assent to this prudential teaching; if the Church were to change its prudential teaching, they would be bound to follow the change in teaching.

[@ctarabocchia]

@@michaeldulman5487 If in act is moral and is required by justice to be carried out and not carrying it out would be an injustice than the Church can never impose a discipline that would force its members to perform an injustice. So if the death penalty is moral and retributive justice demands that it be carried out than the Church could not impose a discipline for Catholic judges, law enforcement officers and executioners to not carry out their moral duty. Note that there are currently no documents or Canon Law updates from Pope Francis telling the laity involved in the death penalty process that they will be disciplined if they contribute in the process of executing a criminal.

[@michaeldulman5487]

@Claudio, that makes sense, but then if the Church is teaching that it need not be applied, it must follow that retributive justice does not demand its application. Paragraph 2266 of the Catechism reads, in part, “ Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” In other words, the primary aim of punishment is corrective-which does not necessarily refer to either retribution or reform of the criminal. It also says the state has a right to inflict punishment proportional to the wrong. This does justify the death penalty, but death is not the only penalty considered equal to a capital crime-life imprisonment is considered proportional as well. Additonally, there are situations where clemency (which is by definition, completely unmerited by the offender) may be granted by the state, in which case a proportional punishment may not be imposed, but we still would say the state has the right to grant clemency. I agree with your conclusion, but I don’t see where retribution is described as the primary puroose of punishment, thereby making any non-retributive punishment by the state necessarily deficient.

[@michaeldulman5487]

*Apologies, but an edit to my earlier comment: I had said Catholics must be obedient to prudential judgment, but actually respectful disagreement is allowed-so in this case, one may disagree that circumstances have obtained such that the death penalty should be considered by and large inadmissible; consequently, it seems one could hold the prudential judgment is incorrect-though that does not mean the prudential judgment is therefore harmful to souls

[@adrianavila7164]

Well articulated - great job as always!

[@katherinegonzalez5034]

Hello Father, Plus XII says this: Most modern theories of penal law explain punishment and justify it in the last resort as a protective measure, that is, a defense of the community against crimes being attempted, and at the same time, as an effort to lead the culprit back to observance of the law. In these theories, punishment may indeed include sanctions in the form of a diminution of certain advantages guaranteed by the law, in order to teach the culprit to live honestly; but they fail to consider expiation of the crime committed, which itself is a sanction on the violation of the law, as the most important function of the punishment. What are your thoughts? It seems as though your explanation disregards expiation as the end of punishment. Thank you and God bless you!!

[@darlameeks]

Thank you, Father. Just for reference, here is the revised text of the Catechism on the issue of the death penalty in that the Church is working for "its abolition worldwide": New revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty - Rescriptum “ex Audentia SS.mi”, 02.08.2018 The Supreme Pontiff Francis, in the audience granted on 11 May 2018 to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has approved the following new draft of no. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, arranging for it to be translated into various languages and inserted in all the editions of the aforementioned Catechism. The death penalty 2267. 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”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. __________________________ [1] FRANCIS, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.

[@Brillemeister]

Fr. Gregory, I want to say first off that I'm a huge fan of yours and of your fellow Dominicans over on Godsplaining. You guys have some incredible insights and make my commute that much more tolerable altogether. That said, I take issue with the way you described the Church's current teaching on the death penalty, which in reality is an unambiguous condemnation thereof with zero wiggle room apparent in the text of the relevant CCC paragraph. Paraphrasing from memory, you said around 13:02 that the Church guards the right of the polity to defend itself using the death penalty, while she simultaneously tries to distance herself from pro-death penalty teachings. The latter point is true, but the former (that she intends to safeguard its right to be applied again at some undetermined future time) doesn't appear to be. From the relevant paragraph in the CCC: "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" "Inadmissible" isn't an adjective that one would use to describe a right that one intends to preserve. Just the thoughts of an actual D student in the single critical thinking class I had in undergrad. I realize there may be some nuance I missed. God bless you guys and everyone at Pints with Aquinas.

[@sethn1094]

From what I've heard from Canon lawyers commenting on the change, the use of the word "inadmissable" instead of "intrinsically evil" actually signals that it is admissable in certain settings.

[@adamaj74]

​@@sethn1094 No, some people just can't let go of the death penalty. The word "inadmissable" literally means not valid, not to be allowed or tolerated. From the CCC 2267, "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." There is no confusion or room for equivocating; our church is clear on the subject, it is inadmissible and should be abolished worldwide.

[@domo3699]

@@adamaj74 Catechism is not highest degree of doctrinal authority. Benedict XVI, while he was still prefect of the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith, said about the John Paul II statement that also moved (more implicitly) towards progressively abolishing death penalty that Catholics are free to retain their private opinion about the matter. It is his way of saying that he doesn't quite agree with JPII. If he as a cardinal, bishop and later pope can have objections, so can layperson.

[@adamaj74]

@@domo3699 Not any more, it's in the Catechism now. The death penalty is inadmissable and we're to work for it's abolishment worldwide.

[@sethn1094]

@@adamaj74 Vatican legal terminology is not ordinary language and this is a teaching that falls under ordinary, not extraordinary magisterium. There is some obligation to affirm what the ordinary magisterium affirms, but as far as I understand, a layperson is not barred from Holy Communion if they disagree with a megisterial teaching that is merely ordinary.

[@Gondorjedi]

By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, by Dr. Ed Feser Fr. Pine is excellent, but I think he misses the mark here.

[@cw-on-yt]

For the most-horrible crimes, the failure to impose the death penalty appears to be a Sin Against Justice (our moral obligation to "give each his due"). It seems that one can, on occasion, abrogate the duty of Justice by specific Acts of Mercy. An Act of Mercy is an act wherein the authorities give the offender something BETTER than what he deserves... - in a special case or for special reasons; - in such a way as to make it clear to the offender (and all others) that he has been the beneficiary of especially gracious and merciful treatment; and, - in such a way as to obligate the offender to show extreme gratitude. So we MIGHT argue that elimination of capital punishment is actually an establishment of Acts of Mercy as a kind of norm. BUT, it also appears that Acts of Mercy lose their salience when they become Normal Procedure: For, once lax treatment is the norm, each offender EXPECTS the more-lenient treatment, and collectively all of society starts to believe that the lax treatment of the offender is normative, and indeed just, and that the ACTUALLY-just, unaltered form of the punishment is unjustly harsh! Indeed, four evils result from normalizing Acts of Mercy only in cases meriting the death penalty: 1. The offender has no gratitude; 2. Greater crimes meriting the death penalty are treated as equivalent to lesser crimes which don't merit it, so that the sense of proportionate punishment is eliminated; 3. The society at large begins to underestimate the degree of the evil of the worst crimes, normalizing them; and, 4. The criminal code becomes an institution of sin, by which the value of the rights of the victims is persistently understated, as if they were of little account. Consequently, it seems that establishing a norm prohibiting capital punishment is a Moral Error. But it appears that the Holy See, under the last 3 pontiffs, has been habitually encouraging this Moral Error! This appears to be a case-in-point that, while respect is due to the office of the Al Bayith/Petrine Successor, the current occupant should not be treated as infallible except in the narrow circumstances defined by Vatican I. On capital punishment, the guidance of recent popes has been disciplinary and prudential...and, rather "iffy" in quality. I want to be a faithful and orthodox Catholic. Somebody please show me how the above ^^^ is in error. If I need to give religious submission of intellect and will to (what seems to me to be) a half-baked analysis of the prudence of capital punishment, someone needs to show me... (a.) why the analysis is better than I think it is; (b.) why the _abolition_ of the death penalty doesn't demonstrate a DECREASING awareness of the intrinsic dignity of victims, as well as a DECREASING awareness of the intrinsic dignity of the offender as a moral actor; and, (c.) why it's okay for the popes to have this... blind spot? I guess? ...about the normative obligation to practice proportionate retributive Justice. I'd deeply appreciate a response to these concerns. Thanks!

[@user-gs4oi1fm4l]

From what I understand the Church teaching on the conditions for use of the death penalty does not have a charism of infallibility since it is not regarding faith or morals but a discipline. Also the catechism itself i have heard as having a fallible charism as well. Whatever confusing language is suddenly getting tossed around this subject I'm probably better off leaving to history to clarify.

[@ThePetrusAugustinus]

"The Church said you should distance yourself from the practice" wait, I thought the modification of the Cathechism under Pope Francis says it's inadmissible and against the spirit of the gospel. Not quite the same thing...

[@pepperorchid]

I love Fr. Pine. Because of this I have to say he is looking unwell in the last couple videos. Is it the lighting where he’s been sitting? Is he doing a serious fast? Loosing weight and dark circles😟 It’s probably because I’m a mother of a priest….

[@steveempire4625]

The lawfully good application of the death penalty is clearly authorized and mandated by scripture. It has never been an issue of whether someone is a true threat to society but divine retribution and purging evil from one's society. The Biblical wording and theme is that justice demands it and failure to uphold that justice is injustice upon the victims/society. And this was the understanding of the Catholic Church up until a century ago. So, how are recent developments not a total modernization?

[@deiniolbythynnwr926]

Until human beings are infallible I will always be against the death penalty.

[@lebecccomputer287]

My thoughts as well. I’m okay with the guiltiest of criminals being executed in principle, but we can never know with certainty if they’re guilty

[@igorquebec7315]

By this logic there should be no punishment for any crime. I mean, we're not sure if they're really guilty .

[@lebecccomputer287]

@@igorquebec7315 no, by that logic punishment should be used cautiously and in such a way that it is not permanent and undoable

[@bassman_0074]

@@lebecccomputer287sending an innocent person to jail for 20 years isn’t undoable.

[@lebecccomputer287]

@@bassman_0074 what point is your comment attempting to make

[@rosecorcoran]

Would the defense of society include those members of society who are incarcerated. That is, of a man kills or rapes a fellow prisoner, can't he be executed in order to protect the other prisoners?

[@skydivingcomrade1648]

The rational approach is nice, but why not start with revelation approach first? God stated the death penalty for murders was to be enacted by the people (body politic).

[@WienerBrigadier]

Great topic! The analogy of a common good as pizza to familial love fell flat for me but otherwise insightful and somewhat relatable.

[@albertito77]

In Mexico you might have Cartelistas who go into jail as Halcones but who come out as Tenientes.

[@BloodyOffDoors]

The death penalty is about revenge, not defence. And there is nothing Christian about revenge. Neither does it account for wrongful conviction - once the death penalty has been enacted, it cannot be revoked. Please don't mistake me for a "do-gooder". Life in prison should mean life.

[@idgafidgaf3059]

Tell that to cult leaders in many parts of the world who had countless helpless female and male children molested and raped. I see death penalty as a deterrent for heinous crimes rather than revenge.

[@sandstorm7768]

Our Pope Francis said it best...it's an indefensible attack on the dignity of the human person. Lethal self-defense only makes sense if the aggressor is already using lethal force. The innocent victim should not have to pay in the heat of the moment. If it's an immediate choice between the innocent and the attacker, it is admittedly more good to save the innocent. (Ideally, situations should be descalated as non-violently as possible.) But if you have already captured a criminal, then what point is there in killing him? No pun intended, but that is severe overkill for the situation. He is already detained, he is already defenseless. It would be cruelty and sadism to kill someone who's already being punished. And on top of all this, but it ignores the reality and power of redemption! Saint Paul and Saint Moses are two excellent examples of redemption. Even Jefferey Dahmer was baptised in prison and struggled with suicide! Think on that! You do not need to force death on a criminal when it is very possible that they can come to the faith and do good. My brother finally convinced me euthanasia was wrong with a similar reason; taking matters into your own hands like that rejects the possibility of a miraculous healing. It was said succinctly in Ephesians 4: "Anyone who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with their own hands, that they may have something to share with those in need."

[@peterpoulos6553]

I think that the death penalty is actually more applicable today than ever before. He mentioned how it must only be done in defense of the parts of the whole. I agree with this. The complexity arises when evil is still committed in large amounts with incarceration. There is murder, rape, and drug trafficking. All of these are mortal sins and harm the infinite dignity of those who commit lesser crimes. Especially drug trafficking because it hinders free will by means of addiction. I assume the Pope's took sins done as a consequence of imprisonment is impossible to control or justly punish if you are unaware of it. However drug traffickers are likely to continue in that crime while murders usually harm less people and might not ever kill again. The death penalty ahouldn't be outright band because there might also be conditions by which imprisonment isn't viable.

[@fredharvey2720]

As someone that has considered converting to the Catholic faith, these contradicting catechisms aren't helpful at all. Pius X catechism makes it very clear that the death penalty is allowed in such as in criminal cases but the new one being circulated forbids it there also. So what IS and where can I find actual, concrete Church doctrine on this and other topics?

[@fredharvey2720]

Still confounded. The Old Testament makes it very clear there are types of conduct that require removal from the planet. I believe that over someone's catechism.

[@jarrod2276]

We all acknowledge that it is justifiable to defend the body politic. That is where the focus should be. Is it effective enough a defence to prevent further attacks from other like-minded individuals by jailing him? If the act of execution is seen as a *_furtherance of a justified defence_* , then to pivot the focus to the offending individual detracts us from the defence of the body politic. Execution as a defensive strategy cannot apply to all crimes. Some crimes are individualistic in nature and executing such criminals will not have a bigger impact and does not provide better protection to the body politic, for example, murder. Executing murderers will not, generally, dissuade other murders from occurring since murders are usually limited to disputes between individuals, and there's no way to prevent disputes. However, drug trafficking inflicts harm on the body politic in a wider sense and executing traffickers can, and has proven to, control the influx of traffickers; thereby providing a more effective defence of the body politic.

[@stampede251]

I can't find your book on Prudence on my KZbin app. Just a bunch of Pints with Aquinas shirts.

[@dannydoj]

Given that Pope Francis has taught that the death penalty is illicit without exceptions, I am worried about the pastoral care of the average “Officer Gomez”, devout daily communicant, who happens to be in the strap down team on death row at the local State Prison. Should he give up his job or continue in good faith? Happy to engage on the question.

[@javierpalos5035]

He's not the Pope, you shouldn't follow or believe anything he has to say. He's a blatant heretic.

[@dav7277]

Hi Father, can you make the book available in kindle/even Audible format?

[@johnsmith-rd3zx]

IF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH GOT RID OF THE DEATH PENALTY THAN WHY DID AARON CARTER JUST DIE OF A DRUG OVERDOSE.

[@goncalorodrigues1964]

I find this video extremely baffling. St. Thomas explicitly teaches that the ends of the punishments inflicted by the legitimate authorities do *not* restrict themselves to safeguard the public order and defend society, but rather the primary aim is to mete out justice and redress the disorder inflicted by the evil doer. And of course St. Thomas is not being some radical innovator, but largely codifying the existing thought on the matter, a teaching clearly articulated in the Scriptures and reiterated by several popes I should add. I have not re-checked but I think it is still in the Catechism $2266.

[@adamaj74]

From CCC 2067, "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."

[@goncalorodrigues1964]

@@adamaj74 I know what the Catechism says. Unfortunately, this is completely unhelpful. What does "inadmissible" mean here? It cannot be "intrinsically evil" since that would contradict prior teaching of several Popes and magisterial documents. Furthermore, the way the Catechism frames the issue is clearly as a prudential matter, e.g. in the stuff about prison systems. How is the death penalty an "attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person"? Prior teaching, and in fact what the catechism currently says, does *NOT* speak in terms of "dignity of the person" but rather in terms of justice as I said. There is no contradiction between applying the death penalty and upholding the dignity of the human person, in fact it has been argued that it is exactly because of the dignity of the human person that the death penalty *is* just. Whether such reasoning is correct or not is not my point, rather that the additions do not clarify but rather confuse.

[@adamaj74]

@@goncalorodrigues1964 For a Catholic, there's nothing to discuss, that's my point. The church officially declares the death penalty inadmissable and wants it to be abolished worldwide. Inadmissable = not valid, not allowed, not tolerated.

[@goncalorodrigues1964]

@@adamaj74 I am a Catholic. But since you have not addressed any of my points, I've got nothing to add.

[@adamaj74]

@@goncalorodrigues1964 I am a Catholic, also. If you read CCC 2267 you would know it addresses your points. You can't appeal to authority or tradition on everything. Do you know how many things that were accepted in the Church in the past that we consider abhorrent today? I just showed you the Church doctrine on the matter. Per CCC 2267 the death penalty is inadmissable and we should work to abolish it worldwide. How is that not clear? Is Pope Francis wrong? Do you know better than him? How about Pope John Paul II? "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...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 Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999 Here is a link to the official USCCB page about the Church's official anti-death penalty position: www.usccb.org/resources/churchs-anti-death-penalty-position And, "Pope Francis’ October 3, 2020 encyclical, entitled Fratelli Tutti, rejected capital punishment as a 'false answer that ultimately does no more than introduce new elements of destruction in the fabric of national and global society.' Citing centuries of death-penalty opposition by leading Catholic scholars and clergy and calling attention to the possibility of judicial error and the misuse of capital punishment as a tool of persecution by autocratic regimes, Francis called upon 'all Christians and people of good will' to work for 'the abolition of the death penalty, legal or illegal, in all its forms.' The encyclical, which commands the highest authority of any published Catholic document, has officially put the abolition of the death penalty in the forefront of Catholic teaching." deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/new-papal-encyclical-tells-catholics-there-is-no-stepping-back-from-opposition-to-death-penalty

[@zipppy2006]

It is sad to see a Dominican on Pints with Aquinas paper over Aquinas' view altogether. In ST II.II.64.2.ad3 Aquinas is clear that certain malefactors no longer possess the relevant kind of dignity (and if all malefactors retained "infinite dignity" then capital punishment would be impermissible even in principle, as Elinor Gardner points out in her dissertation on the question). Further, Aquinas never makes the mistake of conflating the common good with the defense of the community, and in ST II.II.67.2.c Thomas begins by making the point that a judge cannot, on his own, remit a just punishment, for the accuser has a right to a just punishment (and this right cannot be circumvented). Finally, as C.S. Lewis notes in his excellent essay on the "Humanitarian Theory of Punishment," if the malefactor does not deserve death in the first place, then attempts to justify it on the basis of defense or deterrence would be unjust. We cannot kill anyone on the basis of defense or deterrence if they do not first deserve a capital punishment (in retribution), and if they do deserve a capital punishment then considerations like defense cannot mitigate this desert. Catholics who try to follow JPII or Francis in this area end up with a stomach full of bad arguments.

[@justinreany1514]

To this say I think the best presentation of the argument for capital punishment is by Avery Cardinal Dulles S.J. in First Things (April 2001). I think the Church, since the 1950s through Vatican II, has been on a trajectory to emulate the world in its thinking and values. I think anytime a person dies as a result of death penalty (very, very, very rare) it is a sad thing. Yet, not unjust. It can be sad to see a person submit to the just consequences of their evil actions but that does not render the punishment unjust. As Cardinal Dulles pointed out that the modern polemic against CP has predominantly come from those, in many cases, diametrically opposed to the Church and Her theology, philosophy, ethic, etc. Can a pig find an acorn? Yes. A broken clock is right twice a day. It must be pointed out that a Catholic, despite Pope Francis' "rationale", can be in favor of capital punishment. Period. Truth does not change because of a new pope. I think Pope John Paul II took this issue as far as it could go in its force and its argument. I think we should respect the dignity of each individual - aggressor and aggressed. Because we soooo respect the infinite value of of the human person, we set punishment commensurate with the crime. Because we feel pity for a guilty aggressor that pity does not override justice. Pope Francis is trying to bully people into a modernist mindset and ethic.

[@TravisTea1]

Funny how the OP seems to know your watching it a second time and thusly prompts accordingly, !

[@user-ti1ck3gd2g]

im not catholic because the catholic church is against the death penalty but i support the death penalty i had to kill a cardi b song so i could download a christian song instead

[@tMatt5M]

The death penalty is based. Genesis 9:6

[@Patrick-tn7pb]

What about scripture where it says, "let him without saying cast the first stone"?

[@tMatt5M]

@@Patrick-tn7pb That teaching by Jesus is not applicable here. With this logic society should have no laws or punishment because "who am I to judge". Our Lord is saying to not make personal judgements because we ourselves are so flawed. But absolutely a good an just society should appropriately deal with evil members of the society for the Societies greater good.

[@Patrick-tn7pb]

@@tMatt5M How do you know that this teaching by Jesus is not applicable here? And I never said that society should have no punishment or who am I to judge? We are supposed to judge actions but the punishment according to what Jesus said is not to be death. I am struggling to understand how anyone can think differently. How is let him without sin cast the first stone, So hard to understand that Jesus meant we don't kill people because of their crimes. To go back to the beginning of your comment how do you know or what evidence do you have that what Jesus said is not applicable to the death penalty?

[@tMatt5M]

@@Patrick-tn7pb Our Lord is talking about personally judging others. He's saying unless you're perfect (which we are not) cast the first stone. He is not talking about the politics of the death penalty. Jesus even acknowledges the Roman governments authority to crucify him. In John 19:11 we see Our Lord saying "you would have no authority over me if not given to you from above". Here Jesus recognizes Pilate have legitimate authority to use the death penalty Also, more simply put, Genesis 9:6 makes it clear it is just to execute murderers.

[@Patrick-tn7pb]

@@tMatt5M What? How do you know or what makes you think that Jesus is only talking about personally judging someone? How do you know that hes not talking about the death penalty? And I'm sorry but Jesus was not saying saying that the Roman government had the right to crucify him they had no right to crucified anybody but they did. Killing another human being because of their Crime is wrong Jesus said it he said let him without sin cast the first stone. If he was only talking about personal judgment he could have sat there and said" Hey stop thinking that that person's a bad person,that's personal judgment"; killing someone or stoning someone is an action it's the death penalty and he spoke against it. It is amazing to me that people are finding arguments or justifications to killing another human being. It seems you do it so it makes yourself feel better. Killing humans because of because of their crime is wrong. That does not mean that they don't deserve punishment. They do deserve punishment but according to Jesus they do not deserve the punishment of death. How is that so hard to understand and why would you or anyone try to find justification to killing another child of God?

[@user-ph6be9vp8v]

I think JP2 and Pope Francis missed expiation which one is tragic

[@Mike-bn7kr]

I thought this would be an interesting topic but all you’ve done is confuse me. Sorry maybe I just find things difficult to understand.

[@itinerantpatriot1196]

No, you're not alone. I was able to follow where he was going but he was a bit all over the map. Usually his arguments are a bit more cogent.

[@mariacortez5931]

Father what about big drug cartel members who go to jail and enjoy their life there because they have all the comfort of big gangs like MS13 who also have a lot of comfort in prisons. They kill people in masses and horrific ways. Thousands of young people join them and become great criminals. They know that the worst punishment is jail and they keep doing very bad things. If there was a death penalty sentence for those people probably many people would not join the gangs and cartels.

[@justinreany1514]

A practical question: say we decide to incarcerate Jefferey Dahmer to the cost of $1 million dollars a year. Some may argue, whatever it takes! Fine. What if we have 10 Jefferey Dahmers at the same cost to the tax payer? 100? 10,000? 100,000? A cost to society of $1 million to $100 billion. Not trying to determine what life is worth but to what extent do we further insure the societal good for those who had no care or regard for the common good? And I do not think those numbers are outlandish. Soooo much money is thrown at the penitentiary system with questionable results or benefit. It's so expensive that California is now just releasing these monsters back into society. We are talking about California after all. Not the cream of the crop politically or morally. But it is a good thing to ponder. I would also ask one last question to those who will attack me (which they will): What % of your net worth would you be willing to hand over to pay for the incarceration of these murders, rapists, drug/cartel members? Always ask yourself - how much skin in the game am I willing to give to back up my words? What am I willing to do?

[@billstrom351]

I appreciate your learning, but a simpler presentation in necessary. Pope Francis has made a mess. It is Catholic doctrine that the death penalty is admissible. Why or how can the pope change this? A Catechism, while a useful compendium of Catholic teaching, does not meet the bar of infallibility. It is not the way popes teach from the chair of Peter. I wish not to offend you but I think you were on the right track on "self defense" but got lost in the academics speak. OP is Order of Preachers no? It might be helpful to attend some Toastmasters sessions. Protestant preachers seem more well trained in rhetoric. Because unfortunately "the medium is the message" in today's world--presentation is very important. Learned and correct doctrine is necessary, but not sufficient , effective communication is essential. Also prayer is a must. At least make the sign of the cross like they do on Lifesite News at the beginning. as one saint once said: "To preach without prayer is like throwing a bullet." Our Lord used stories to convey teaching. I feel bad for you trying to defend Pope Francis. I have a number of Protestants that were opening up about Catholicism, but Pope Francis' confusion and the USA Catholic bishops cowardice facing down "Catholic" pro-abortion politicians has made it almost impossible. I would have liked to forward your video to one of my Protestant friends but I think it was way over his head. Words such as "politi" shouldn't be used. imho You are in my prayers www.toastmasters.org/magazine/magazine-issues/2019/oct/what-to-look-for-in-a-good-speech

[@tomgreene2282]

This young man has a certain style ....suitable to his age?

[@adamaj74]

With all due respect, that was a lot of words and explaining without stating the church's teaching. From the CCC 2267, "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." There is no confusion or room for equivocating; our church is clear on the subject, it is inadmissible and should be abolished worldwide. We have no right to kill someone in cold blood, no matter what they have done. If a person commits a crime against another that permits the use of lethal force, the VITCIM has the right to employ that right in self-defense DURING the crime committed. State officials, or anyone else, do not have the right, after the fact, to calmly walk a person to an execution chamber and kill them. Not to mention all the innocent people who have been unjustly executed and all those who, with the help of modern forensics, have be exonerated, etc. Many other issues with the death penalty and the legal system in general. It's not perfect and is often wrong. That alone should preclude the death penalty, let alone the moral reasons. It's archaic and barbaric. If someone does something horrible, they either have mental or spiritual issues. Killing them in cold blood is not the answer.

[@gtdannemiller]

This cannot be true. The Church's magisterium for years has taught that the death penalty is admissible. No church teachings can change to an opposite of what they were. Truth is truth, now and forever. Now, the application of something might change, for example there be no reason to use it now as we have ways to protect society but that does not make the act intrinsically wrong. Even a pope cannot change the deposit of faith and the perennial teaching of the church.

[@zipppy2006]

Appealing to the recent Catechism as a proof for the death penalty is like appealing to the local forecast as a proof for the weather. Like the Catechism's teaching on the death penalty, the weather forecast changes by the hour.

[@adamaj74]

@@gtdannemiller And now, as Pope Francis explained, owing to changes in circumstances, society, culture, technology, etc., the official church teaching is that it is not admissable. Per CCC 2267 the death penalty is inadmissable and we should work to abolish it worldwide. How is that not clear? Taking a life is an absolute last resort, in defense of life, to preserve innocent life, victims, in immediate danger, etc. "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...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 Papal Mass, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999 Here is a link to the official USCCB page about the Church's official anti-death penalty position: www.usccb.org/resources/churchs-anti-death-penalty-position And, "Pope Francis’ October 3, 2020 encyclical, entitled Fratelli Tutti, rejected capital punishment as a 'false answer that ultimately does no more than introduce new elements of destruction in the fabric of national and global society.' Citing centuries of death-penalty opposition by leading Catholic scholars and clergy and calling attention to the possibility of judicial error and the misuse of capital punishment as a tool of persecution by autocratic regimes, Francis called upon 'all Christians and people of good will' to work for 'the abolition of the death penalty, legal or illegal, in all its forms.' The encyclical, which commands the highest authority of any published Catholic document, has officially put the abolition of the death penalty in the forefront of Catholic teaching." deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/new-papal-encyclical-tells-catholics-there-is-no-stepping-back-from-opposition-to-death-penalty

[@adamaj74]

@@zipppy2006 The Catechism is church dogma and doctrine. The new Catechism doesn't contradict the previous ones. As it explains, "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." Taking a life is always a last resort and changes in circumstances, society, culture, technology, etc., necessitated the Church's anti-death penalty stance.

[@javierpalos5035]

It's sad that you embrace heretics such as Bergoglio. He can't be the Pope.

[@josephpillion2252]

imagine bros a carthusian

[@boyonstilts3121]

Forcing taxpayers to feed, clothe, house, and provide medical care to murderers is unjust. If you want to imprison them for life, you pay for it.

[@domo3699]

@Juan Pablo Andueza Well, unfortunately, modernists in the Church are also going against forced prison work. By their standards good citizens literally need to feed most despicable scum of humanity.

[@ButterCupLetsgoColts]

EAT FOOD

[@thomaserickson568]

Sorry I said you're a top, that wasn't very nice and I apologize.

[@Mike-bn7kr]

I was thinking that a few years ago Pope Francis changed with the catechism says about the death penalty and that it is not some thing that we can do anymore.

[@FrJohnBrownSJ]

It's not something you could've ever done on your own. Only a competent authority, as part of a society could've done it. As societies change, the rules have to adjust. Pope Francis updated the Catechism to reflect that societies now have better options than the death penalty.

[@millersatthefarm8]

My concern with Pope Francis is that it seems to be a departure in principle from the consistent teaching of the Church. It is one thing to say that the death penalty is licit but unnecessary in the modern world, but it is entirely a different thing to say that the Church had it wrong for a couple of millenia. The Church's teaching on usury is a good example. The principle that charging exorbitant interest on a loan is sound, but the application of that principle has changed over the years. It is very disturbing that the Pope decided to completely change the essence, the very meaning, of Church teaching in this case. For those of us who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and Tradition, it is a hard thing to reconcile.

[@adrianavila7164]

Well said, Fr. Brown!

[@Patrick-tn7pb]

@@FrJohnBrownSJ Father, Jesus said, "let him without send cast the first stone" How then could the death penalty ever be accepted by the church or the church fathers it is wrong because Jesus said it was wrong.

[@tomgreene2282]

@@FrJohnBrownSJ I gather some Catholics in the States were not happy with that.