tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post9079888985756973648..comments2024-03-25T06:39:42.081-04:00Comments on Bonfire of the Vanities: Pope Francis 'making a mess' of the Catechism, especially on the death penaltyFr Martin Foxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01375628123126091747noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-89331577131533557682019-05-29T16:13:25.957-04:002019-05-29T16:13:25.957-04:00The death penalty is always moral. The prisoners ...The death penalty is always moral. The prisoners can repent before they are executed. Also John Paul should not have tried to change the morality of the death penalty. And Pope Francis did change the morality of the death penalty. He changed God's Devine truth.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15642258210241477498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-85638007974489374232018-08-11T00:21:48.794-04:002018-08-11T00:21:48.794-04:00Great post by Father and excellent comment here by...Great post by Father and excellent comment here by meme1961. Thanks to both of you.<br />JenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14168956.post-21613141637262152142018-08-09T12:57:56.539-04:002018-08-09T12:57:56.539-04:00Father, thanks for your long comment on Father Z&#...Father, thanks for your long comment on Father Z's blog. Mostly a set of questions, yet those questions were helpful all on their own, and I'm quite grateful for your work.<br /><br />In regards to the change to the Catechism: I think what is getting confused here is the act versus the intent.<br /><br />At the purely natural level, the death penalty is the killing of a human being. By the natural law, the killing of a human being is always immoral <i>when it is not necessary</i>. Clearly, there are times when it is necessary.<br /><br />However, if one can keep a guilty person both safely (thus satisfying the need for humane treatment) and securely (thus satisfying the need to protect society) then life in prison satisfies the moral goal and killing the guilty is no longer necessary.<br /><br />So the question is not, nor ever has been the morality of the death penalty, but the morality of the intent and end of <b>applying</b> the death penalty.<br /><br />I believe the previous version of the text makes this fairly clear, as it specifies (and in doing so constrains) the general intent and end under which the death penalty could be applied.<br /><br />The use of the word inadmissible will require thought and study. I have interpreted this as being both a constraint on current action (that in societies that can satisfy the safe and secure requirement that the death penalty is no longer admissible) and a moral obligation (that in societies that could, but currently do not have a prison system that satisfies the "safe and secure" requirement that Catholics are obligated to create such, just as we once created hospitals).<br /><br />In societies that cannot satisfy those requirements, the question then becomes: "Does the universal Church have an obligation to ask members of richer societies to help create prisons that satisfy these conditions?"meme1961https://www.blogger.com/profile/03473680377790936688noreply@blogger.com