Pope Francis changes Catholic Church teaching to say death penalty is ‘inadmissible’

Washington Post ^ | August 2, 2018 | Chico Harlan

[ebb tide]

ROME — Pope Francis has changed Catholic Church teaching to fully reject the death penalty, the Vatican announced Thursday, saying it would work to abolish capital punishment worldwide.

The change addresses several sentences of the catechism, the compendium of Catholic teaching, but it sharply amplifies the church’s opposition against one of the world’s most debated policies.

The church’s updated teaching states that capital punishment is “inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” Previously, the church allowed for the death penalty in very rare cases, only as a means of “defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.”

[Maris Crane]

IGNORE THIS MAN FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY!

His concern is ONLY with religious issues, NOT, I repeat, NOT about man made laws. Man made laws are the purview of MEN, not clergy.

Incidentally, I am Catholic. Patiently waiting for a change.

[Campion]

By the way, on the topic of "changing things," do I really need to remind you how many different understandings of soteriology there are in the Protestant camp?

Whether or not the adherents of those different understandings think they can justify their position from Scripture, the fact remains that those positions have evolved considerably from what Calvin taught, which itself had evolved considerably from what Luther taught.

[Salvation]

From the Bible:

Ecclesiastes 3

---

1 For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:
2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;
3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.

[ealgeone]

By the way, on the topic of "changing things," do I really need to remind you how many different understandings of soteriology there are in the Protestant camp?

Whether or not the adherents of those different understandings think they can justify their position from Scripture, the fact remains that those positions have evolved considerably from what Calvin taught, which itself had evolved considerably from what Luther taught.

And if I followed Luther or Calvin, I'd be worried about that.

However I don't follow those guys. I follow Christ.

His Word does not change.

I agree people can misapply the Scriptures as we're seeing with the acceptance of homosexual relationships and some using Scripture, or ignoring Scripture, to say they're ok.

We do see women as pastors in contradiction of Scripture. And I've had debates with them to justify their "calling". The usual reply is "I don't have to explain anything to you".

We can examine Scripture and see they are not correct.

We can do the same and examine Scripture and see where Rome is incorrect. And that is all I do on these forums. Well, actually I like to use Rome's own writings against Rome to show where they're incorrect or where they've changed or contradict Scripture.

But my point remains.....Scripture does not change....Rome's "Traditions" have.

[utahagen]

I've been persuaded it's possible that Benedict deliberately did not resign the Papacy effectively and that he remains the true Pope, which does not make me a sedevacantist. It also wouldn't make me one if Benedict were to die tomorrow, anymore than I was one when JPII died and we were awaiting a new Pope. Another possibility is that Pope Francis has made so many heretical statements that he has made himself illegitimate as Pope. (For example, he has said and written that no one can be condemned for any sin forever because “that is not the logic of the Gospel”.)

If “sedevacantist” means rejecting Pope John XIII and every one after that, then I am NOT a “sede”. If it means believing that Pope Francis is for some reason — I am not sure what that reason is — not the true or valid Pope — then I am a sede.

[grania]

I’m not missing the point that the faux Pope is way out of line with his words. I expressed my thoughts as a contrast, perhaps an example of how he should approach things....with thought.

[ridesthemiles]

Fancy words from a guy who has 24/7/365 guards, never has to ‘go shopping’ and wears a dress !!!!!

[cherry]

what a horrible think to happen to your friend...so sorry for her, and you....

the DP does settle a lot...not a closure...not even an eye for an eye...

but it does bring an end to a very evil life that would no doubt, go on to committ more evil...

having said that, I have no problem with life imprisonment with banishment(no media/no outside contact) if life imprisonment meant life imprisonment...

[G Larry]

paraphrasing:

Moses told you 'an eye for an eye', but I tell you do not be angry with your brother.

[G Larry]

"if you are against the death penalty, you favor having murderers living next door."

Major logic failure!

[HangnJudge]

Thank you for your kindness

[Mrs. Don-o]

You seem to have missed the fact that Pope Francis' whole pontificate is in dispute. If the 2013 conclave which voted for Jorge Bergoglio was invalid for whatever reason --- and if you want, I could list 4 plausible reasons --- we have a non-pope (some would say antipope) occupying the See of Peter. This is gravely problematic but not unprecedented.

Even a validly elected pope cannot rescind the Papal Magisterium, which is, the permanently authoritative teaching of previous popes. (Otherwise, he'd be saying, "Nobody else ever had permanent authority, but I do.")

Nor can the matter be settled just by saying "So I'll just pop this right into the Catechism." Since this latest statement of his seems to be reliant on a debatable prudential judgment concerning of practical adequacy of life imprisonment as an alternative (do they have maximum security prisons in Sierra Leone? Papua-New Guinea?)--- I'm doubtful this can be properly called a "change in doctrine."

Plus, nobody would be well-advised to go to the Washington Post or CNN for their theology.

If you have any questions, I would be happy to answer them.

[Mrs. Don-o]

His opinions are incoherent.

Sometimes I wonder if he's straight. He can't even think straight.

[ealgeone]

You seem to have missed the fact that Pope Francis' whole pontificate is in dispute.

You may recall I do not recognize the office of the papacy as a valid one based on the New Testament.

If the 2013 conclave which voted for Jorge Bergoglio was invalid for whatever reason --- and if you want, I could list 4 plausible reasons --- we have a non-pope (some would say antipope) occupying the See of Peter. This is gravely problematic but not unprecedented.

Well, ebb's already told us the pope is not selected by the Spirit so right off the bat Rome is in trouble with their procedures.

Even a validly elected pope cannot rescind the Papal Magisterium, which is, the permanently authoritative teaching of previous popes. (Otherwise, he'd be saying, "Nobody else ever had permanent authority, but I do.")

Well, you may say that, but Rome's history shows popes changing doctrine and Rome changing doctrine for that matter....reference our discussion yesterday.

Nor can the matter be settled just by saying "So I'll just pop this right into the Catechism." Since this latest statement of his seems to be reliant on a debatable prudential judgment concerning of practical adequacy of life imprisonment as an alternative (do they have maximum security prisons in Sierra Leone? Papua-New Guinea?)--- I'm doubtful this can be properly called a "change in doctrine."

Plus, nobody would be well-advised to go to the Washington Post or CNN for their theology.

That's the general thrust of the article posted by ebb.....are you saying he's pushing "fake news"?

[ohioman]

The idiocy of this Pope continues......

[Mrs. Don-o]

Ebb is not likely to confuse Bergoglio’s opinions with the perennial Papal Magisterium, nor to offer the secular media as sources of Catholic doctrine. I suppose everybody here knows that, unless they’re not really paying attention.

[ealgeone]

Ebb is not likely to confuse Bergoglio’s opinions with the perennial Papal Magisterium, nor to offer the secular media as sources of Catholic doctrine. I suppose everybody here knows that, unless they’re not really paying attention.

I don't know....he seems to take every chance to post every article he can get his hands on to trash the dude.

If this isn't a big deal....why post it??

Fake news??

[stonehouse01]

Do you know if this is a binding teaching from Bergoglio? In what form did he make the statement? I doubt it is formally ex cathedra but have no idea.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum320.htm

In article two Aquinas allows for the death penalty.

[Salvation]

Why believe the Wash Compost on Catholic matters?

[redleghunter]

All those souls tortured and burned to death during the various RC Inquisitions must all be comforted today.

Once again proving doctrinal development is at the heart of the RCC and they have very little to do with antiquity except for the costumes.