Pope Francis came to Washington, and some of us appointed ourselves experts on what he ought to say. (Here is one example. Here is another.) Once you do that, you also become certain what the pope ought not say. Don’t talk about climate change, sir. Don’t mention capitalism. Stay out of politics when you talk to Congress.
And once you say that, you stop listening, with open ears, to what the pope does say. You hear him only so that you may find something to pick apart and criticize and deconstruct. You become his critic, not his sheep. You become the pope of the pope. Why, the pope said nothing about abortion! Why, he did not even mention the name of Jesus!
I suspect that is not the way Christ meant for us to hear Peter.
(Note here that, when Pope Benedict XVI spoke at the White House, he did not talk about abortion, or mention Christ’s name, either. Just an aside.)
Pope Francis did speak very plainly, however, at the White House, about religious freedom for Catholics.
Mr. President, together with their fellow citizens, American Catholics are committed to building a society which is truly tolerant and inclusive, to safeguarding the rights of individuals and communities, and to rejecting every form of unjust discrimination.
With countless other people of good will, they are likewise concerned that efforts to build a just and wisely ordered society respect their deepest concerns and their right to religious liberty. That freedom remains one of America’s most precious possessions. And, as my brothers, the United States Bishops, have reminded us, all are called to be vigilant, precisely as good citizens, to preserve and defend that freedom from everything that would threaten or compromise it.
And then, as though to underscore that point, Pope Francis made an unscheduled visit to the Little Sisters of the Poor, who are fighting the Obama administration on that very issue. It was an unmistakable show of solidarity with those who, in their own turn, stand by the weak and vulnerable. The pope stood with those who want to help the poor and not sacrifice their beliefs to those who claim to speak for the poor.
Save Them Both
He also made a passing reference to religious freedom in his speech to Congress yesterday morning. But it was on the right to life that he showed once more his ability to surprise and unsettle us.
The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development. This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension of hope and the goal of rehabilitation.
He does not mention abortion, though you expect that is the very thing coming when he says we should “defend human life at every stage of development.” Those words make sense when you mean the unborn life in the womb. But at what “stage of development” are those who sit in prison, convicted of violent crimes, awaiting possible execution?
One must listen to the Holy Father. He tells us. He tells us when he notes how important it is always to seek the criminal’s rehabilitation. The man sitting on death row might not be in a stage of physical development, but he is—like all of us—in a stage of moral development. We must want him, too, to be born into life.
It is important to be clear here that one can be a supporter of capital punishment and still be a faithful Catholic who is not in dissent from Church teaching. We may disagree on this. The Church does not demand that we be against the death penalty like she demands that we be against abortion. But Pope St. John Paul II tells us, in Evangelium Vitae 27, why it is right to be against it.
Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but “non-violent” means to counter the armed aggressor. In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.
John Paul II, like Francis, frames the issue around a desire for reform. The death penalty has always been a pro-life issue, in that the reason for it—the only reason for it—is to protect innocent life against an unjust aggressor. St. John Paul II’s point was that improved prison security gives us a way to achieve that goal without taking the life of the criminal. Both lives—the innocent and the guilty—may now be saved.
Though it is licit to support the death penalty, one needs to take St. John Paul II seriously. The only morally acceptable reason to take a life is to protect life. But much more often than not, that is no longer necessary. As those who defend life in the womb say, when “danger to the life of the mother” is used as a reason to be in favor of abortion, “Save them both.”
Pope Francis: Pro-Life is Not Just Abortion
I wonder greatly at the notion that Pope Francis somehow needs to bring up abortion in front of the president, or in front of the Congress. Is the Church’s position unclear? Is the pope’s position unclear? Behold, we have been told before.
Or is the belief that, for some reason, the pope needs to call out President Obama and Nancy Pelosi to their face, the better to shame them in front of the cameras? After all, Mother Teresa spoke clearly about the evil of abortion in front of the Clintons. At that point they duly and at once repented.
Oh, wait.
I would have liked the pope to be firm about this too. But what he wants to do, I think, is to remind us that the life issue is larger than just abortion. (Or euthanasia.) This does not diminish abortion so much as it enlarges life. Catholics talk about the sanctity of life at the beginning and at the end, but how often do we talk about the sanctity of life in the middle? How often do we talk about the right to life of the guilty? Christ broke the prison bars of death for the guilty. He came to set sinners free.
The pope is trying to tell us, not what we have heard and know well, but what we little hear and need to know better.
That is how he shocks us. We keep wanting him to really give it to the Congress about being pro-life, and instead he gives it to us about being pro-life.
But pro-life, and the dignity of the human person, do not just apply to the baby in the womb or the old person with dementia in the nursing home. It also means the refugee. It means the immigrant. It means the poor. It means the prisoner. It means all of us in the middle between birth and death, who are in via, and whose dignity and whose redemption and salvation matter. “Whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me”; and the pope tells us that the guilty too, not just the innocent, are “the least of these.” Their life, and their souls, matter to God.
It is shocking. Christianity has always been.
76 thoughts on “How Pope Francis Shocks Us on Life”
That’s too simple an analysis. I for one sat there with an open and hopeful heart, listening to his words and learning what I could. I reflected. I took deserved slaps on the wrist. And after all that, I was still discouraged, and with good reason. This, dear sir, is fuzzy thinking to defend fuzzy speaking. Catholic moralizing must begin with a “first things” approach, or it risks devolving into confusion or imbalanced priorities (like the Pope’s extended comments on the death penalty.) In THIS case, abortion is the “first thing” we should be concerned of. Furthermore luminaries such as Saint JPII and Mother Teresa would repeatedly remind us of the fundamental nature of the defense of life in establishing a real culture/ethic of life in society. For the Pope’s part, at a moment when the momentum for the pro-life movement could be near the tipping point, where we could really take the fight to the enemy and start to change even more hearts, the topic was glossed over. He moved so quickly from “protect at all stage of development” to the death penalty, that it almost seemed that he was nervous to even speak of it in passing.
Finally, do you recall when JP2 gave a liberation theology Priest in south America the “two finger scolding” in front of his entire nation, on the tarmac just after departing his plane? In some fashion – even a gentle fashino – it would have been nice to see that, as we are a nation now LEAD BY CATHOLICS who make excuses for their deviation from the magisterium. The sheep need their shepherd.
This article is nonsense! Garbage! Francis could have made the point that respect for life covers more than abortion while emphasizing the great evil that abortion is. Over 53,000,000 babies have been murdered in this country alone since abortion became legal here. This is the greatest evil in human history. The innocence of the victims, the sheer numbers, the selfishness of the murderers – all make this so very evil. Francis had no problem lecturing Congress and the UN about other things, but not a word – specifically – about abortion. This is undermining the fight we in the pro-life movement have been waging all these years. It is encouraging the culture of abortion. This is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of Christ, as does his confusing (or maybe not so confusing) comments on homosexuals and divorced and remarried Catholics. I don’t care if he is the pope. We’ve had bad popes before int he history of the Church.
The comparison to BXVI is a sleazy debate trick. Benedict didn’t NEED to make those points because his allegiance was never in doubt.. Francis spends half the time sounding like a member of the other team, so his followers need more reassurance.
A leader needs to give his OWN followers a reason to stick around. He does NOT need to attract new followers by insulting his OWN followers.
Yes the Pope certainly shocks us alright. I wonder how much further shocking we may receive in the coming days. Holy St. Michael the Archangel protect the Church and protect us all.
“It is important to be clear here that one can be a supporter of capital punishment and still be a faithful Catholic who is not in dissent from Church teaching.”
Are you also saying that one can be a supporter of abortion and still be a faithful Catholic who is not in dissent from Church teaching?
No. Read the whole paragraph; I also say this: “The Church does not demand that we be against the death penalty like she demands that we be against abortion.”
And note that Cardinal Ratzinger said that very same thing:
“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia..
Thanks, I overlooked that bit in the paragraph…because your overall article seem so much to be in defense of the “seamless garment” proposition that progressive Catholics support.
In any case, I am, like many who have commented here, highly disappointed with our Holy Father for not being as responsible as a father ought to be. He ought to have, in solidarity with the faithful prolifers, courageouly spoken up as loudly as possible for his unborn children, who are unable to speak for themselves.
A religious leader who to fail to make any mention about the Love of his life in his message to the world, cannot complain when the world look askance at his faithfulness to his professed beliefs. It is also cognitively dissonant especially when he is dressed in his religious garb.
We all need to speak up for what the world needs to hear, not wants to hear. It will be irresponsible for me to attempt to find any excuses to defend my Father’s politically correct statements, or his poor performance in denouncing injustices that truly matter.
He is human and I will pray for him (as he has openly asked from all of us) and implore the Holy Spirit to enable him to acknowledge his shortcomings and make amends quickly.
We heard of many in Jesus’s time who wanted not to hear of Jesus’s plan to succumbing to death on a “cursed” cross for our salvation but of a strong leader who would assist them to overthrow the dominion and oppression of the Roman government. So it is in our time there are many who want not to hear Pope Francis speak about the death penalty but speak like Mother Teresa when she says “If life can’t be defended at the moment of conception it’s not possible to be
defended at any point thereafter. She further states, “The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me?
There is nothing between.”
This is an argument for the author of this article when he states,
“But what he wants to do, I think, is to remind us that the life issue is larger than just abortion. (Or euthanasia.) This does not diminish abortion so much as it enlarges life. Catholics talk about the
sanctity of life at the beginning and at the end, but how often do we talk about the sanctity of life in
the middle?
Yet because of the outcome, I can only hope that Pope Francis, either consciously or unconsciously
under the direction of the Holy Spirit, wants to take up this issue in a intimate setting and not in a public setting. That he wants or longs for each person to be convicted by the Holy Spirit personnally
on so serious a matter. We pray that they come to know and receive the mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ and for them to offer their will to God freely as a gift. Not because they were told to do it in a
public setting or by a law. For those of us who want to fix things logically these quotes seems to
help me. “There are times when our lives do not call so much for doing as for our ‘enduring,'” he said, “for bearing up with our own limitations as well as those of others.” Fulton Sheen
Quotes from St.Teresa of Avila
Let nothing disturb thee; Let nothing dismay thee; All thing pass; God
never changes. Patience attains All that it strives for. He who has God Finds he lacks nothing: God
alone suffices.
&
Learn to self-conquest, persevere thus for a time, and you will perceive very clearly the advantage which you gain from it.
Abide in peace, banish cares, take no account of all that happens, and you will serve God according to his good pleasure and rest in him. St. John of The Cross
Yes we want to save innocent lives but our hands are tied to the hands of our leader.
More on the strong feelings of Mother Teresa of Calcutta:
If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people to not kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want.
&
It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.
Correction of a brother in Matthew Chap. 17:
15h “If your brother* sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. 16*If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
This correction can only be done in obedience through the work of the Holy Spirit and requires the precision and gentleness of a surgeon. The law could never accomplish this. Mercy triumphs over justice everytime.
”But what he wants to do, I think, is to remind us that the life issue is larger than just abortion.”
Just abortion! Abortion kills the most,most vulnerable in our society. They can’t fight back.
With euthanasia there is a choice. All of life is sacred, but in the womb, an unborn has no voice, and no choice.
I’m not minimizing abortion–you’re misinterpreting my use of the word “just,” which in context means “limited to”–I’m saying only that the unborn aren’t the only ones who have a right to life.
You are right that pro-life does encompass all of life. But you must also concede that the unborn are the most silent and have the highest numbers of numbers of elimination ever know since it became legal to murder them.
God only knows how great the number of euthanasia victims and willing participants will grow to be when it becomes another form of universal slaughter.
I do concede it, which is why I included the paragraph about the right to dissent from the pope on the death penalty. No such right exists with respect to abortion and euthanasia. Cardinal Ratzinger pointed that out, and that abortion and euthanasia have far greater moral gravity.
But conceding all that doesn’t mean you *can’t* be against the death penalty, or concerned about those lives, at all.
I agree.
I am not in favor of the death penalty, but have no great enthusiasm to join the on and off again public activism to end it when there are, as you quote the good Benedict XVl, ‘that abortion and euthanasia have far greater moral gravity’.
When Pope Francis appointed Cardinal Danieels ( 82) to the synod,that was the final nail for me. My hunch on election night, sadly , has been proven correct.
I continue to support this pope. I have said many times, although I may not understand his statements, the Holy Spirit is in charge-not me, not us. Whether we agree with his politics or not, he continues to make inroads to people and groups we never thought would stand with us for anyone. He also comes from a culture where the government did nothing at all to help the oppressed, but hampered any attempt to alleviate the people on the streets issue-hence his view on capitalism. He has appealed to those who would never consider Catholicism. I personally feel that they have the wrong idea of Francis and his meanings, but let’s face it-he HAS us-he WANTS them. The Faithful Church will always be with him.
Having typed all that, I also, as a life-long Prolife activist, or Anti-Abortion activist (I don’t care what you call me), I remain greatly disappointed in our Pope. For what he has done, what he has not done, and what he could have accomplished. Sometimes I feel like the “marginalized everyone” has a Pope, but the Faithful Catholics who work in the trenches every day to uphold and pass on Traditional values, do not. I will work on that. And pray. Pray to the Holy Spirit. I also pray for understanding.
You mean like Ananias and Sapphira? Or, like the human race sentenced to death because of Adam’s sin? People guilty of premeditated murder and convicted have plenty of time to repent on death row. The very fact that they know they will die on a certain day can more easily move a man to repent before that day and ask for a priest.
“Like the human race sentenced to death because of Adam’s sin”? We all get the death penalty? Christ didn’t come and defeat death? There’s no stay of execution–for anyone? We’re all going to Hell?
Mr. Alt said – “Catholics talk about the sanctity of life at the beginning and at the end, but how often do we talk about the sanctity of life in the middle?” I guess he doesn’t realize that the 58 million babies that have been aborted since 1973 don’t have have to worry about the middle, they’re dead!
That would be false.
What’s false? The number – 58 million children that have been aborted (killed) since 1973 or the obvious fact that they don’t have a middle.
No. That “I don’t realize.” To care for more than just those 58 million makes one’s concern for life larger, not smaller.
Pope Francis mentioned the death penalty but he should have also mentioned abortion. Not doing so trivialized the lives of these 58 million precious children, each one was given a special gift from God to make the world a better place. When even one of these lives is lost, our world is greatly diminished as evidenced by the turmoil in the U.S.
Also with the current fight to defund Planned Parenthood and also trying to pass the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would prohibit abortions after 20 weeks, the Pope’s words could have helped bring about much needed pro-life legislation. A great opportunity was lost!
But he did mention abortion–at the UN. He was clear enough about it that it prompted a condemnation from Planned Parenthood (no less a person than Margaret Sanger’s grandson). And even many in the liberal press understood that the language “all stages of development” included abortion. So the liberals are upset that Pope Francis condemned abortion, and yet some conservative Catholics are complaining that he didn’t condemn abortion. I concede you disagree, but I just don’t understand that.
I am hoping the Pope meant abortion as well as the death penalty. But it would have been so much better to make a bold, and clarifying statement.
How many times have the words from our Shepherd been ambiguous and have been interpreted to mean whatever anyone wanted them to mean, hearing what they want to hear? Is that why the world, including the liberal media and those who hate us, applaud our Shepherd and leave us wondering?
Pope Francis needed to, as Tess said, make a bold and clarifying statement. Why? Because sitting in front of him were the Senators and Representatives who formulate the laws.
On the same day Pope Francis gave his speech, the Senate rejected a short-term spending bill that would defund Planned Parenthood. Senators voted 47-52 on ending debate on the short-term continuing resolution.
Eight Republicans broke ranks and voted against moving forward. Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) was the only Democrat to vote in favor.
If Pope Francis had spoken out strongly against the horror of abortion and Planned Parenthood’s horrific practices, would the vote have been different? We’ll never know. Remember – I shall pass this way but once; any good that I can do or any kindness I can show to any human being; let me do it now. Let me not defer nor neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.—Etienne de Grellet
I agree Angel.
Yes, I can only imagine how smug Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are today. They now clearly have the high ground and any time anyone mentions the word abortion they will be able to say “You should listen to Pope Francis. This is clearly not a priority for him. He’s with us, not with you.”
And they most-likely received Communion.
Last count – 60 million dead babies in the U.S. since 1973, and only a few hundred executions. To spefcifically mention the death penalty without specifically condemning abortion is a scandal. There’s just no other way to put it. Cleary, by not mentioning abortion specifically Pope Francis intended to rebuke those American Catholics who care about it.
The sheer plethora of other times he mentions it specifically somehow don’t count?
Not really, no. The moment was before Congress, or any time when he was here in the United States. A Wednesday audience in Rome just isn’t the same platform.
I am not saying the Pope is pro-abortion, obviously. What I am saying is that when he had the platform he chose to highlight the death penalty instead and to pointedly avoid mentioning abortion.
The message came through loud and clear. It was a rebuke and a slap in the face to all those who have worked so hard in the pro-life movement to prevent the slaughter of millions of innocent children on the altar of Molach. In effect, he told us to shut up about abortion. In my opinion, his highlighting the death penalty while refusing to mention abortion was the equivalent of going to the gates of Auchwitz and decrying the execution of Nazi war criminals while pointedly avoiding mentioning the Holocaust. It is shameful. Sometimes you have a moral duty to speak out in a particular time and place. He failed.
But Benedict XVI did not mention abortion at all when he spoke at the White House and the United Nations in 2008. Pope Francis, however, *did* mention abortion at the UN.
“The common home of all men and women must continue to rise on the foundations of a right understanding of universal fraternity and respect for the sacredness of every human life, of every man and every woman, the poor, the elderly, children, the infirm, *the unborn*, the unemployed, the abandoned, those considered disposable because they are only considered as part of a statistic.”
I fail to understand the thinking that says, Unless the pope says it to Congress, he doesn’t say it. Congress must be there to hear the tree fall in the forest, or the tree didn’t fall.
WOW – Do you think that the Legislators heard the talk at the U.N.? The answer is probably not, he spoke to them in Congress. Yes it was important that he addressed them specifically because they formulate our laws. The last time I checked, the U.N. is not in charge of the U.S. laws.
And also “the unborn” is not a strong statement. 58 million innocent children made in the image and likeness of God have been slaughtered since 1973 and continue to be slaughtered every day. God have Mercy on us for this atrocity!
I wish the Pope had simply said in Congress that no Catholic legislator could in good conscience allocate funds to entities that perform abortion. Not hard, very clear, not controversial from a Catholic pov. What is left unsaid roars like a devouring lion among the corpses of 50 million US babies.
Even the apostles spoke up when Jesus said something they did not understand. Sheep will follow and run over the cliff. Really unchristian to declare who are the sheep and who are not. He came for us all, the critics as well.
” He tells us when he notes how important it is always to seek the criminal’s rehabilitation. ”
Many have and all willing are able to rehabilitate their lives even up to the point of death.
It’s not a system preventing this from happening it’s the persons themselves who won’t
say I’m sorry and be willing to pay the price they exacted on another. The fly in the jar
is how many are innocent and how can that be avoided.
You claim “It is important to be clear here that one can be a supporter of capital punishment and still be a faithful Catholic who is not in dissent from Church teaching.”
What about when Church teaching? conflicts directs with Christs words, and I mean directly. Carefully study John 8:7 and see if Jesus was bot directly and clearly opposed to the OT dictum of retribution.
Many forget that Jesus once served as a one-man jury on a death-penalty case. In a famous New Testament story, an adulterous woman was dragged to Jesus’ feet. The woman was guilty of a capital offense and had been caught in the act by at least one witness. The law mandated her death but Jesus prescribed a different response: “Let whoever is without sin cast the first stone.”
Lol….the whole Trinity gave the death penalty for adultery in Leviticus 20:1 and Leviticus 20:10…
” The Lord said to Moses…If a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.”
Father Son and Holy Spirit gave the Mosaic death penalties through Moses. Catholicism says the entire Bible has God as its author. Where? Vatican II…Dei Verbum…” both testaments in all their parts have God as their author.”
Jesus therefore as Word commanded the death penalties for mortal sin in the OT but rescinded them only because He was bringing grace Jn.1:17. Prior to grace, man needed great threats to avoid sin…after Christ, he does not because Christ reduced satan’s power for all men even the non baptised…” I saw satan falling like lightning from the sky”. On a separate track was the death penalty for murder given to BOTH JEWS AND GENTILES in Gen.9:5-6 and Rom.13:4 after Christ but authored by the Trinity again…and not contradicting Jn.8:7… unless you think God contradicts Himself but then you should buy anything in the Bible which is not a buffet table.
“Jesus therefore as Word commanded the death penalties for mortal sin in the OT but rescinded them only because He was bringing grace Jn.1:17.” is your statement. OK, we agree that the death penalty is of the table….. The evolution of the death penalty …. because many who are killed are actually innocent.
Reread your paragraph and pretend you are a stranger to it.
I think you skipped my ending inter alia. The death penalty saves literally thousands of lives in countries with large numbers of poor rather than affluent countries. New Hampshire and Sweden will never have many murders with or without the death penalty. China would have thousands more murders per year without executions. Innocent inmates executed…I’ve seen very diverse estimates based from anti or pro positions. Not interested since God’s own system in the Mosaic law was vulnerable to mistakes…ie His requirement of two or three witnesses….is easily abused if two people wanted another man’s land and simply bore false witness.
So you claim a direct statistical correlation between the death penalty and saving of lives in poor countries? Would like to see the research…perhaps you make a case for redistribution of global wealth?
Here’s the UN figures by large region…worst down to best:
UNODC murder rates, most recent year[6]
Region Rate Count
Americas 16.3 157,000
Africa 12.5 135,000
World 6.2 437,000
Europe 3.0 22,000
Oceania 3.0 1,100
Asia 2.9 122,000
Worst area is the Americas (16.3 murders per 100,000) but that is actually not true of Canada (1.6) and the US (4.7) and is skewed by northern Latin America. Chile and Argentina are not bad either.
The worst area then in the world is non death penalty but poor.
The safest area is Asia, largely death penalty and poor. Europe is second safest…no death penalty but no large poor sectors. Africa is second worst…poor and rare executions skewed to Muslim countries which worldwide have low murder rates unless they have scarce police coverage. To see country by country. google ” homicide by country wiki” which has the UN numbers in detail.
Income redistribution….can be righteous, can destroy cultures if done with the avenues for sloth as in the black US welfare areas which have a 32 per 100,000 murder rate…that is near Central America’s.
Hi Phil, I believe you are mistaken about the passage. Jesus did not condemn the death penalty in that situation, He condemned the death penalty FOR ADULTRY. Since that does not happen here, perhaps we would find fault with those religions who do. The death penalty should never be taken lightly, and I am personally against it. Not because Jesus said we can’t (He didn’t) but because I think we are better than that. And, I think it may deprive the person from repenting.
Tess,
The death penalty actually brings on the repentance of two famous people…the good thief and Timothy McVeigh. Imagine if you knew certainly that you would be executed on January third for murder….I’m guessing you’d mke a more earnest review of your conscience than if you just grew old doing life. What if a majority of life sentence people masturbate for the last decades of their life. That life sentence then has increased their punishment in the next life. Instead people talk cheery about inmates even though their recidivism rate is awful in the US if they get out of prison.
Jesus himself was a victim of the death penalty.
Yeah, but He came back to life after a few days ….people subject to the death penalty (some of who are really innocent) do not
Do you believe in legal abortion to save the life of the mother or for incest or rape?
No….except for rape, incest and protection of the life of the mother.
Do you believe that experimentation on animals is wrong?
Yes…
Then it follows that you have an over inflated concern for the death penalty, by seeing nothing wrong in the death penalty for the innocent life of the unborn who, through no fault of their own (or their mother) were conceived. Yet, that more common death sentence of abortion has no voice and is excused and permitted by putting others rights over its own, when there is no threat of death to the mother.
There is also the issue of it being moral and *good* for victim and criminal alike – even after forgiveness has been given – that a punishment be in proportion to the crime. A well formed person would naturally choose to accept a harsh punishment for a harsh crime. To not give this punishment becomes itself a serious injustice to everyone involved.
“A well formed person would naturally choose to accept a harsh punishment for a harsh crime.”
Yes, partly, if a person were to be convinced that they alone were responsible for doing something morally wrong, be sorry, and then be able to accept the just punishment for the crime, that would take grace or a good conscience, I think, because human nature balks at just punishment and tries, as you know, to escape it. After all, none of wants to go to hell for our sins, and would like to even avoid purgatory if we can.
It was an unjust execution, not an example to follow.
He didn’t rally his followers to change the law.
His followers (Jews) had no ability to influence Roman law; neither did HE have the time after his conviction for being “King of the Jews” to rally anyone.
My point is, that, Jesus saw the salvation of the human soul His primary purpose for dying, not changing the local law, no matter how unjust it could be.
Sorry there is no dogma of the church that says that Capital Punishment is intrinsically evil- until the Church says there is and there is official documentation – it is just an OPINION
You need church dogma to be a rational, compassionate human being that respects the dignity of human life and acknowledges that convictions of a particular crime are always right and that error in sentencing an innocent person does not happen? An opinion held by humane people does not need to be dogmatic.
Wow you don’t read very well do you? The Church has official teaching that Abortion is always evil and wrong. It does not claim “authority” on Capital Punishment – it’s view is just that “a view and an opinion” and holds no official ban or Church Teaching that says the act is evil, or anyone who participates in carrying out the task is evil. Personally I think it is better to let someone sit in prison for life however when necessary there is NOTHING wrong with carrying out Capital Punishment – perhaps you would feel different if you had a family member murdered
I read quite well, but I question your logic. Yes, i know its an opinion and I know that there are people on death row who have been proven innocent and I know people have been executed who are innocent. I know people who have had a family member murdered and conviction be it death or life in prison NEVER brought closure….forgiveness did. You don;t need dogma to form a just and humane opinion.
Astounding that a man with a heretical rainbow in his profile pic could lecture anyone – and I mean ANYONE – else about contradictory thinking.
It’s a picture of my totally disabled son who is a pure spirit and it just happens that most of his loving therapists who stuck by him thick and thin were gay, so he and I celebrate … your bigotry, sir, under the guise of religion, is still bigotry. My thinking is logical and your attack is an ad hominem argument. We are discussing capital punishment and you seem obsessed with same sex relationships.
Now I am fascinated with your obsession with a rainbow profile. As my friend, Hitch often said: “Nothing optional – from homosexuality to adultery – is ever made punishable unless those who do the prohibiting (and exact the fierce punishment) have a repressed desire to participate.”
I am glad that your son has a wonderful therapist. God bless him. But that doesn’t give you the moral right to celebrate what – if it is being acted upon – is a great moral evil. In fact, to support a man who has helped YOU in this way is to lack charity. This is also the reason I pointed it out: here you are, seeking a disconnect between Christ and Church teaching, when you yourself display this disconnect. It’s not an ad hominem: it’s the same treatment I gave my “catholic” friend whose profile pictures supports Planned Parenthod. We need to be more consistent.
First, I am not a Catholic, so that’s a false assumption on your part. The “man” who helped me is actually a large number of female therapists….no men and they are beautiful people with much love for a kid that people who look the other way rather than engage. It is not a disconnect because you assume I am a Catholic when I am not, nor would I choose to be. I disavow the RCC teaching on homosexuality because it is simply wrong and does not respect human dignity. Now in Christ’s day there was ample evidence of same sex activity and I cannot find a single word that Christ said about this issue…if it were such a seriously grave issue he would have confronted it, no? He like Francis focused on the marginalized, Matt 25.
A misogynist, homophobic orthodox Jew, Paul did speak about it, but he never met Christ except in a schizophrenic episode on the road to Damascus. And he was referring to men-boy behavior in which was common in Greece …a text without a context is a pretext for having it say what you want.
We are all people…no better than the other, no holier than the other, all different, all journeyers on the same planet. I AM CONSISTENT, you just make false and erroneous assumptions about people….and I also support PP.
Then why, pray tell, if you do not hold any Catholic assumptions, do you comment on these boards? You just outed yourself as a troll. As to RCC teachings on sexuality: they are the height of justice. “Let people do whatever they want or feel like doing” is no way to build a cohesive society, let alone to respect any individual.
I am very interested in how people think, how they perceive reality, how particular religions affect peoples’ perceptions of reality … I am interested in studying perception formation and in challenging some perceptions which I believe are heinous and failing to respect human dignity. You are entitled to believe that RCC teachings about human sexuality are just, I feel they do an injustice to human dignity and conscience.
So we disagree, I am a student of disagreement. Now you resort once again to name calling, “troll”. People usually resort to name calling when they have no perceptibly logical response to another. I would certainly entertain discussion of these issues as long as you (1) make no assumptions about me, (2) do not call me names because names detract from a dignified conversation. You should know that and be ashamed.
I comment on the sites of a variety of religions and political ramblers…it’s to learn about people.
My logical answers are quite extensive – try me. What is lacking on my part is patience, specifically patience with people trying to “re-educate” Catholics (in this case, the source of my “troll” statement.) Honestly, what makes you think that you know something that 2,000 years of the brightest minds in history – theologically, morally, philosophically – have not yet discovered?
I, like you, am also very interested in how people think, and also how they “mis think.” I cannot find any way, outside of total atheist relativism, which may even *begin* to justify the normalcy, health, and morality of same-sex attraction *acted* upon. (Even in a purely materialistic context, we MUST ask WHY we are suddenly expected to accept the normalcy of such a desire, even when we do not yet scientifically know what causes a person’s sexuality to misfire and lead to SSM, bisexuality, pedophilia, or any other “alternative” orientation.)
And so, my fascinated friend, if homosexuality is a deviance from the biological norm or a malfunctioning of our intended biological function (which we must clearly accept as true, regardless of how we may want to legislate on the matter), what exactly makes you think that it is “just” or “humane” to encourage a person on this path?
Incidentally, do you know any homosexuals who have received psychological relief or even a cure for their homosexuality? I do. Do you know any who elect to live in chastity, peacefully recognizing that to act upon their mis-wired sexuality is detrimental to them? I do as well, and all happen to be what psychologists would label as normal, happy, and well-adjusted people. The standard “gay is ok” line simply does not hold to scrutiny in any field of inquiry. So where do YOU begin?
Mark,
Kindly allow me to express a response to your many queries about my position on gays and the human dignity they deserve. I will respond to each of your points you posit not be vague statements without corroboration but be offering scientific and historical information.
You state that you wonder what I could offer that 2000 years of the brightest minds have not discovered. We the answer lies in scientific inquiry and historical evolution of knowledge and thought. One example, Thomas Aquinas a foremost doctor and father of the RCC church maintained in his writings that ensoulment occurs for males after 40 days of conception and 80 days for females. He also maintained that abortion was always evil, but somewhat less grave prior to ensoulment. Now he borrowed this thesis from Aristotle. Science has taught that life begins at implantation of the fertilized egg in the uterus. Ultrasound demonstrates the developing fetus…technology not available in Aquinas’s era. So now we teach ensoulment for both males and females occurs at conception and that all abortion is equally evil. Science assisted in the development of moral reasoning. The same could be applied to the Catholic Doctrine of Discovery enunciated by P Alexander VI and long since ignored as heinous. So I can offer science and history not available to moralists in year prior.
You ask why accept the normalcy of homosexuality, same sex marriage, bisexuality, pedophilia, etc.? Well, pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children under 13. Every organization dealing with normalcy like the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association considers pedophila a mental disorder as evidenced in the DSM-5. It is also consider not curable. There is a scientific consensus. Homosexuality is not the norm (1.5 – 3%), but then again neither is a 7 foot tall person, a small person, an albino, a person with a chromosomal abnormality, nor my son who was underwater for 25 minutes without oxygen. The norm is a meaningless measure. Sexual orientation exists on a continuum. The latest science indicates that there is a genetic determinant for sexual orientation.Scientists are discovering epigenetic links to male homosexuality in twin studies.
http://www.nature.com/news/epigenetic-tags-linked-to-homosexuality-in-men-1.18530
So if there is a clear genetic basis to determining sexual orientation, then this is something not changeable and certainly not chosen. It is and people have a right to live as who they are are as long as behavior is always confined to two consenting adults. They were made that way, they should be allowed to live that way….the Creator allowed it.
If you want the norm, you cannot look at normalcy in the past 2000 years; man achieved behavioral normalcy about 65,000 years ago; our closest relatives are the bonobos who have one more pair of chromosomes than homo sapiens….examine the sex lives of our closest evolutionary relatives. Neither gay, bisexual, nor heterosexual are good nor bad…the simply are and are because of genetics, evolution and the Creator and all He made He says was good.
Now you intimate that gays can change. An absurd statement in the light of scientific research. While I will admit that behavior can willfully change in few, orientation never changes. It has been proven that Reparative Therapy or Conversion Therapy is a cruel hoax. It does not work. The only real scientific research into conversion therapy was conducted Spitzer in 2001 and he led people to believe that some change of orientation was possible. After examining his data and methodology, he repudiated and retracted his own study. The AMA, APA, APsyhA, all determine that this therapy leads to depression and suicide and violates the Hippocratic Oath.
The Surgeon General repudiates Conversion therapy and it is illegal in 4 states and DC. The WHO organization states that sexual orientation on its own is not a disorder. In the past forty years there is no research that indicates that sexual orientation can change….none. Behavior is not orientation. Please do your research before citing a few anecdotal cases from friends.
http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/the-lies-and-dangers-of-reparative-therapy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
https://www.splcenter.org/issues/lgbt-rights/conversion-therapy
I hope this holds up to scrutiny…
Thank you for reading
. Typical flattery essay which is 80% of Catholic writing. Pope Francis spent most of the paragraph trying to save the 1093 largely guilty murderers who were executed worldwide in 2014 instead of the millions of innocent aborted ( right now 800,000 so far this year just in the US to date ).
From 1796 til 1850, four Popes executed 500 criminals when the papal states were large, covering much of central Italy. Put papal executioner Bugatti in your search engine.
Too much Catholic writing is simply Pope flattery. It brings in the clicks on the net. The two largest Catholic populations are Brazil and Mexico. They have no death penalty, porous prisons and very high murder rates…24 per 100,000 and 20 per 100,000 respectively. Catholic central America is 31 per 100,000 which is 90 times the murder rate of death penalty Japan. But Japan is not so relevant because like Europe, she has no huge poverty population. East Asia is relevant and is the safest large area by UN figures in terms of adult murder IN THE WORLD….1 per 100,000 with Christians as a minority. A Catholic non death penalty area is the worst in the world..northern Latin America…and three Popes in a row did zero research on the matter yet proceeded to write and talk about the area they did no research on. Pius XII who affirmed the death penalty in 1952 like all Popes after 1253 AD, would laugh at the current papal death penalty farce. We …Catholicism…have the worst murder area to our credit in the world and it has no operative death penalty AND WE’re telling the world to join us. Europe is the second safest area in the world with few poor so death penalty or not matters little. Affluent people don’t murder anywhere in large numbers…be it Maine or Sweden or Catholic Monaco, Austria or Malta.
God gave the Jews over 33 death penalties for sins largely. That is over and irrelevant here. But God gave the gentiles…us….a death penalty for murder in Genesis 9:5-6 and after Christ rose and ascended, God repeats that in Romans 13:4 and says it is for His wrath not ours. St. John Paul II saw the Genesis passage but he didn’t like it totally so he did surgery on it. Go to section 39 of Evangelium Vitae and watch closely as he quotes the front and back of the couplet but leaves out the death penalty part. A cardinal in the CDF saw it and made sure the entire couplet was in the catechism in ccc 2260 which the Catholic media never cites.
Millions aborted and Pope Francis talks about the 1093 murderers for most of the paragraph and this is good for you….normal for you…not crazy for you.
IT IS SO TRUE THAT ONE CANNOT PLEASE EVERYBODY BUT THESE CONSTANT ATTACKS ON POPE FRANCIS ARE REALLY DISGRACEFUL, EVEN FROM SOME MEMBERS OF THE CATHOLIC CLERGY!!!
SOME PUT WORDS MOUTH BEFORE HE UTTERS THEM LIKE WHEN WE PRESUME WHAT HE IS GOING TO DO OR SAY IN TH SYNOD ON THE FAMILY WHICH HAS YET TO HAPPEN!!!
OTHERS COMPLAINED ARE SCANDALIZED BECAUSEOF WORDS HE HAS NOT SPOKEN!!! NOW WE R SAYING THAT HE NEVER MENTIONED THE WORD ABORTION TO CONGRESS!!!
WHAT ABOUT HIS MENTIONING IT TO THE BISHOPS???
IS HE TO SAY THE SAME THINGS TO EVERYONE???
PERHAPS HE SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN A SPEECH AND USED IT TO TALK TO EVERYONE!!!
SORRY BUT THOSE WHO LISTEN FREQUENTELY TO THE POPE HAVE HEARD HIM CONDEMN ABORTION AS ONE OF THE GREATEST EVILS OF OUR TIMES!!! WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT!!!
You addressed nothing in my post but thanks for the aesthetics of seeing what multiple caps look like. He ( and his two predecessors) are getting thousands killed in the Phillipines alone yearly by ignoring Genesis 9:5-6 and God’s mandate to execute for murder. If the Phillipines had China’s execution process for murderers, they would reduce their recent 8000 victims at least by half whch is allowing for a wide margin of failure error. That’s four thousand a year three Popes are killing unwittingly just in the Phillipines through ignoring Gen.9:5-6 which is shown in its entirety in ccc #2260.
Hi Mary,
We would like clarification and validation.
Very good analysis.