- Sep 29, 2015
- 19,407
- 16,225
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
John Paul didn't allow any reason for capital punishment except for the preservation of order and safety. But for those things he did allow it. I accept that and there are real circumstances that will probably always exist where a convicted person will have to be put to death to protect society. A person who murders even in prison for example, or narco-terrorists who can buy their way out of prison. The perfect prison does not exist even though a supermax prison is pretty good. So we will always have a need to put some particular convict to death.I actually wrote a detailed post on my opinion of the matter here. Although I don't like John Paul II's decision, my primary aim in these discussions has been to tease out the fact that John Paul II's teaching was a substantial revision of the long tradition of the Church. I think more people need to admit that fact. That's not to say the revision was intrinsically illegitimate, just that it was in fact a revision.
Pope Francis is naive to think otherwise. It's as if he decided there would be no exceptions and that was that. He's the pope and he thinks that means he can make things up. Argh.
You say pope John Paul II made it up as well. I know little about whether that is so or not. I do know that a Moral Theology textbook from the 1950's by Heribert Jone doesn't find the death penalty problematic for a grave crime as long as guilt is assured with moral certainty, and that the criminal is given an opportunity for the sacraments. It says only that it is allowed 'in the interest of the common welfare'. I don't think this is anywhere near an exhaustive. It isn't clear what 'in the interest of the common welfare' really means. That's about the extent of my understanding of the pre-John Paul situation.
Upvote
0