Maybe I'm just thick but still struggling to understand how the death penalty was admissable under all Popes before John Paul II and now it is not. The two main arguments for the new position appear to be -- 1. Better means of incarceration and rehabilitation 2. The inherent dignity of the human person. How come Popes before did not condemn because they understood point 2 many centuries ago? I find it hard to reconcile the two contrasting positions - at one time admissable and now it is not. The problem is all mine - maybe I have a slow brain.
Scriptures themselves changed - de facto evolved / perfected - as is evidenced in God's planned step by step unfurling revelation to Man's ability to learn/absorb ... as time went/goes on. We see it in our Lord stopping eye for an eye .. and stoning ... etc, in the manner in which it had been occurring even when He walked the Earth.. But Before going on, let me ask you: What circumstances of Capital Punishment would you personally see as being allowable for one already incarcerated?
My problem too Bobby. If it ain't broke don't fix it! (As they say around here) i think a strong strain of humanism influenced JPII.
OK... And. .What circumstances of Capital Punishment would you personally see as being allowable for one already incarcerated?
The sentence is established at the trial not after incarceration. If the person is guilty of heinous murder and proved beyond a shadow of a doubt then yes there is a place for capital punishment. I don't want to get into the weeds on this.. If the pope declares it inadmissible then I guess for now it is regardless of tradition and the magisterial. Peace out.
The evolution/unfurling of understanding could also be applied to contraception and sexual morality? Fr. Chiodi, the priest from the Pontifical Academy for Life said in a 2016 lecture that there are 'circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception'? So, if capital punishment has been changed then why not contraception?
Did not our Lord Jesus supersede (still existent) Mosaic law by stopping the (Mosaic legal) act of Capital Punishment? (Stoning) Why did He do that? Some people even argue that it would be OK to murder an already captured and confined Hitler.. I would argue that it's still Murder.
You disagree with Pope Pius XII. In an address given on 14 September 1952, Pope Pius XII made clear that the Church did not regard the execution of criminals as a violation by the State of the universal right to life, arguing that, "when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual's right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live".
The argument will be that the provisions of HV were not infallibly pronounced so open season on the contents of any Papal document which is not specified as dogma, except - of course- for Francis' own encyclicals (such as that on the death penalty) which will be regarded as dogma and the new ones that will emerge on contraception, same sex 'blessings' and (eventually) marriages. We are on a slippery slope folks.
'I think that the trials which lie before us are such as would appal and make dizzy even such courageous hearts as St. Athanasius, St. Gregory I, or St. Gregory VII. And they would confess that dark as the prospect of their own day was to them severally, ours has a darkness different in kind from any that has been before it. The special peril of the time before us is the spread of that plague of infidelity, that the Apostles and our Lord Himself have predicted as the worst calamity of the last times of the Church. And at least a shadow, a typical image of the last times is coming over the world. I do not mean to presume to say that this is the last time, but that it has had the evil prerogative of being like that more terrible season, when it is said that the elect themselves will be in danger of falling away. This applies to all Christians in the world, but it concerns me at this moment, speaking to you, my dear Brethren, who are being educated for our own priesthood, to see how it is likely to be fulfilled in this country. . . . you will say that their theories have been in the world and are no new thing. No. Individuals have put them forth, but they have not been current and popular ideas. Christianity has never yet had experience of a world simply irreligious. . . . consider what the Roman and Greek world was when Christianity appeared. It was full of superstition, not of infidelity. There was much unbelief in all as regards their mythology, and in every educated man, as to eternal punishment. But there was no casting off the idea of religion, and of unseen powers who governed the world. When they spoke of Fate, even here they considered that there was a great moral governance of the world carried on by fated laws. Their first principles were the same as ours. Even among the sceptics of Athens, St. Paul could appeal to the Unknown God.' St Cardinal John Henry Newman to a group of Seminarians 1873!
Our parish church, when built in Victorian times, had the archdiocesan seminary attached to it and St. Cardinal Newman used to celebrate Mass there sometimes for seminarians and parishioners. I sometimes look at the (now unused) ornate pulpit and recall that he spoke from it several times. He probably gave the sermon quoted above in our church. (We hear a great deal of less edifying things in homilies there these days - e.g. 'the protestants have a point about us overdoing the devotion to Mary' and many more).
The overwhelming impression I get from Cardinal Newman's life is one of constant , great suffering. He truly did walk the way of the Cross. I think his biggest Cross was to leave the Anglican Sect. I read the saddest story about him one time. He had set up a little Anglican Monastic community at Littlemore. One Anglican Minister recounts one evening encountering poor John Henry standing outside the gates of Littlemore looking in with tears streaming down his cheeks , poor man and this was years after he had become a Catholic . I believe the Saint commented that the reason he became a Catholic was that it was simply the Truth and he felt he had to. I often suspect that there are many , many Anglican laypeople and clergy, including Bishops who know that the Catholic Church is the Truth in their hearts but won't pay the Financial and emotional price of doing something about it. John Henry did pay the price; a broken heart. I admire him so much for this. I think too for Protestants like himself at the period the Catholic Church in Britain was made up so much of working class Irish Catholics, I suspect for an Englishman of his class this must have been a big social downstep as well. I noticed one time a picture of GK Chesterton after his conversion at Mass and he seemed so kinda out of place there. I would guess Chesterton was a Saint too. Or at least something of a saint “The Mass is very long and tiresome unless one loves God.” ― G.K. Chesterton
