Oh, and while I'm not suggesting excommunicating folks who don't follow every Church teaching (which would be wrong), I AM suggesting that if you think you're immune from criticism for doing so, you're clearly mistaken.

Clarification: I hardly see the harm in following the Church's lead when there's not a damn good reason not to follow that teaching. To not follow the Church where there's not a damn good reason, I'd have to go to a parish that had liturgical dancers, or at least run for president as a Catholic in Name Only.

Dear Anonymous Coward:
While obviously there are levels of authority, I hardly see the harm in following the Church's lead when there's not a damn good reason. Nice use of personal attack to try to label me as a heretic, BTW.
I hereby dub Anonymous posters labeling others as heretics through a misinterpretation of others' positions Moronism. You sir are the leader of this brave movement.

Esau, I can't believe you thought I'd remember what you said nine days ago without a reminder in a lengthy thread. A refresher would have been useful.
Okay, at any rate, here goes. First of all, at the time Ratzinger was a Cardinal, not the Pope, and the current Pope at the time worded things stronger. If Ratzinger as the now current Pope were to reiterate that, it would certainly strengthen the statement. I think you would suppose as well as I that not everything he said as Cardinal he would say in the same way today. Being Pope has a higher burden on what you are saying given its higher weight.
Secondly, and more importantly, just because more than one opinion can be held does not mean all opinions are as correct, as charitable, or as in line with the Church's teaching.
Finally, Tim J. isn't fully agreeing with your stance, please reread instead of trying to use it as some sort of "victory" in this matter.
Now, Tim J.: Church teaching is not that the death penalty cannot be used. However, it is getting more and more to the point where it should NOT be used ordinarily. There are infallible eternal Church teachings, and then there are teachings of the Church, which, while not required, are for your own good, and teach you Christ's ways.
The Church Jesus made is not here only to say "these 15 things are inflexible, you must obey, everything else, live as you want and claim it's Christ's way". It gives day to day advice to us, year to year, generation to generation. To ignore what the Pope says is the right and good way to live is to toss Christ aside and say "hey, I got this myself and don't need any help from you God, thank you very much". It's a ridiculously self-sufficient, and frankly, self-important way of looking at your relationship with God. It's also EXTREMELY in line with a Protestant world view, and even more so with the American one where we won't have anyone telling us what to do even if it helps people.
So, yes, given that Church teaching is more than merely purely infallible statements of the Church, and that we should consider it strongly, lets look at that teaching.
Here's from a book that I guess you "infallible only please" folks won't care much for (and I'm specifically saying I don't think this likely means you Tim). The Catechism of the Catholic Church. Highlights added.
2266 The State's effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.
2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'
Oh, and since you'll be disregarding this Catechism as "optional", you may want to look at this statement by John Paul II, which I hope you won't ignore.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!
The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus' disciples (cf. Lk 22:32 as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith. Therefore, I ask all the Church's Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.
IN CONCLUSION: Even where you won't be kicked out of the Church for disagreeing, to submit your heart, soul, and will to Christ's Church is a mark of humility, intelligence, and sanity. It is far better to do so than make up your own answers or protest needlessly in all but the most serious cases.

"Church teaching" is not that the death penalty should never be used. It just isn't.
Thank-you, Tim J.

"It's the people who aren't trying to absorb the Church's teachings before finding problems or outright rejecting that I really feel disappointed about"
Well, see, here's my minor beef with that statement; "Church teaching" is not that the death penalty should never be used. It just isn't. That was JPII's counsel, which I take very seriously, but I don't believe his position on the death penalty should be called "church teaching" in these discussions. It just serves to confuse his prudential judgment for de fide doctrine.
Church teaching allows that the Death Penalty may be used but only in the most grave of circumstances, and every Catholic ought to become aware of what those circumstances are.
JPII was of the mind that such circumstances practically never exist in the modern West. He may or may not be correct on that.
I agree with your assertion (I think) that many have never really seriously considered what JPII was trying to say. As in so may cases, there seem to be two extremes of interpretation. One says that "The Church now teaches that the death penalty is immoral and that we are bound to oppose it" and the other says "That was just the Pope's personal opinion, so I don't have to listen to it".

Jarnor,
Please refer to my Aug 15, 2007 9:11:17 AM Post above.
I was assuming you read it.

See, Tim, that's a reasonable position that is very respectable on such a hard issue. I have no beef with that. It's the people who aren't trying to absorb the Church's teachings before finding problems or outright rejecting that I really feel disappointed about. If the Church cannot teach people inside of it, how can the Church reach the souls outside that need guidance? Why should those outside give a darn if we don't even listen to the guidance of our Church. This is even worse when it IS a non-negotiable thing such as abortion that Catholics are ignoring Church teaching about, of course.
Esau, I like you, but you're going into the same mode here that you use when you start attacking John. Please just put your point clearly, and then I can see what it is you are disagreeing with.

That's my main problem, people don't really give a rip what the Vatican thinks about the death penalty unless forced to agree. I think there's a lot to be said about following the guidance of the Church even when not forced to under pain of excommunication.
I guess then Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) happens to be one of those people then!

"That's my main problem, people don't really give a rip what the Vatican thinks about the death penalty unless forced to agree."
Well, that may apply to some people (actually, there are some who consider JPII a heretic because he was not in support of killing as many murderers as possible), but not to all.
I have taken JPII's thoughts under serious consideration and, as I say, it would not break my heart to see the end of the DP here in the U.S.. However, ensuring that some of these violent types can't commit more violence would require keeping them in conditions that would very likely be considered inhumane. It is no easy question.

That's my main problem, people don't really give a rip what the Vatican thinks about the death penalty unless forced to agree. I think there's a lot to be said about following the guidance of the Church even when not forced to under pain of excommunication.
But if Anne Rice's Amazon page has a link to a Kung book, well, that's an exception, and even though it's not explicitly prohibited, it clearly shows she's not much of a Catholic. That's damn near a direct quote from another thread.
Double standard much?

For those interested in what the Vatican thinks about the death penalty, the Pontifical Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples has recently issued a 13-page dossier on the death penalty - basically pro-life. Links and summary at Vox Nova

Well Tim, I think that's where we can make a much more rational case for an execution, if someone, even after incarceration, is a proven danger to others. I'm just not liking the jovial cheerfulness about killing I had been seeing about. However, until the Church says all executions must stop, I think some dire circumstances may come about, and there we do have some discussion room. To pretend that John-Paul's words mean nothing and execution should be a regular thing is another story entirely.
Oh, and Bookworm, I used that example because of an analysis on this blog about that issue. Jimmy did a pretty thorough job, and it was an interesting read. I'm afraid I'm too tired to look it up right now, but a quick search should find it.

"...you people who love killing so much that you support the death penalty's widespread use..."
And who would that be? Not me.
It wouldn't break my heart to see the end of the DP in the U.S., but it can't be argued that Church teaching demands this.
Then there is the problem of what to do with the really hard cases - those who keep right on killing even in prison. Prisoners and guards must be considered part of society, too, and they ARE in danger from such violent prisoners.

I may be wrong, but actually I am pretty sure I saw somewhere that the whole women priest thing was declared infallible. I can't remember the exact source in which it was, but I am pretty sure that it was asked before on the Ask and Apologist portion of Catholic Answer's forums.

Mary, since I made it clear that I concur with the Church's teaching that it is permissible, if needed for the defense of the state, clearly I am not out of line with Church teaching.
However, you people who love killing so much that you support the death penalty's widespread use despite what the Catechism or Pope John-Paul II said are. You have a right to be in opposition, but a right to disagree and having it be the correct or moral thing are not the same. Technically, since not infallibly defined, that whole stupid women priests thing can be argued, or at least one can try to make a point that it can be argued. Is it helpful to the Church, or good for our spiritual development to do so? Not likely.
When we act against mercy as hard as we can, and then play CYA by saying "but the Church doesn't ALWAYS ban this" is a cheap trick, worthy of "pro-choice Catholics" and their ilk. The only difference is that conservatives tend to disagree with the church on everything the Republican party likes, and the liberals on the Democrats. It's a matter of luck to the Republicans that so far their issues have been less non-negotiable.

Honestly, I think our Liberal Media is just a reflection of society's Collective Laziness and Stupidity(really trying to be gentle here). If there weren't so many people relying solely on one news source, and would actually pick up a book every now and again, it wouldn't be profitable for them (Media) to spout off garbage that some of us can see right through.
In some cases, it's just wordplay and/or placing the conservative ideas within a story at a point that may be ignored by the listener/reader. It also can be the tone of the persons voice or the mannerisms in which they report the stories. In my town, the newspaper may only include the weaker Conservative voice against a stronger Liberal opinion, and leave the Conservative voice out when a weaker Liberal argument is present. In another scenario, a television show I just stopped watching took it's main characters; those whom the viewer had come to feel comfortable with, and portrayed them in all in a push for same sex coupling.
Maybe this recent occurrence with the BBC will cause the Media to look in the mirror and ask the hard questions. Or maybe it will just disappear in their "Black Hole" of a vacuum.

Fox,
I do not see how your distinction between the left/right in the US necessarily counters my previous assertions regarding the left as being pro-government and the right being pro-faith. Your stated example of personal responsibility versus group-enforced responsibility is merely a restating of my previous thoughts from a slightly different perspective.
In other words, I think it is safe to say we can agree.
I believe this towering similarity between the two political poles to be undeniable. No one can seriously say that the left fears and disdains monolithic government just as no one can seriously say the right fears and disdains monolithic faith.
How the left has been able to package its message as being anti-establishment without being challenged until now, however, is a great mystery to me. Except for a few courageous speakers whose hearts are informed by a faith in rebellion against the world, people still labor under the false idea that liberals are anti-establishment.
It is the kind of idea that is so obviously false that it ends up being accepted unquestioningly as a truism by our culture. Only a lie could be believed in as earnestly as this.
We who believe in the One God know and experience the occasional pang of existentialism, the dreadful fear in the quiet of the night that death will come and drag us into oblivion. No serious Christian has been able to avoid a long, hard look at the possibility that reality might not countenance the existence of God.
Yet we still know God's existence is true.
Modern "liberalism" is as anti-establishment as the SUVs liberals drive and the slave-labor Nike's they wear. They back the only institution in the modern world that could possibly hold sway over us as monolithic and invasive.
When was the last time a pastor threatened to take away your gun? When was the last time you spent the night up in April calculating your tithe? When was the last time the Church charged you for sending your children to a public school? The Church may point out homosexual acts as sinful but she cannot, as the government does, fine you for speaking in public about it.
Not even kings enjoyed the degree of power our president enjoys today. But you will not hear a word of criticism from the liberal because he is as breathless with the prospect of being a king-maker as any medieval political opportunist. They love the monarchy of the Oval Office.
Liberals are pro-monarchy, pro-monolithic institution, and pro-invasive government and the scary thing is, they are the ones backing the only force in this modern day that is capable of totally inflicting its will on all of us.

THANK YOU FOR SPREADING THE TRUTHS!!!!

"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."
Though I agree that statement is unassailably true, I also agree with Carl's implication above, which is that Catholic teaching regards the death penalty as permissable only as a last resort grounded in societal self-defense, and the prudential calculus should be limited only to making that assessment.
Within that limitation, a faithful Catholic can favor legal option of the death penalty. I say that as an opponent of the death penalty for the reasons articulated so well by Esquire yesterday evening.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty when it's the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

I can't believe there is an argument going on regarding the death penalty.
Check the Catechism. The Church teaches that the state retains the right to use the death penalty. Whether its use is prudent and moral depends on the circumstances.
JPII believed that no circumstances exist in the modern West that justify the death penalty. That was his prudential judgment, and should be seriously meditated upon, but it does not overturn the clear teaching of the Church presented in the Catechism, which JPII himself promulgated. Case closed.
It is error to say that Church teaching prohibits use of the death penalty.

Esau,
I'm with you on this one. There are is lots of confusion on this matter, and those who think it is a simple right to life issue are sorely mistaken. Take for example these two quotes that I pulled quickly off a random website:
Pope Pius XII, Sept. 14, 1952: "When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live."
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger made this statement in a June, 2004 memo to the U.S. Bishops: "Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. 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."
JPII's personal opposition to the dealth penalty in all cases is clear. He and others strongly influenced the Church to become essentally anti-capital punishment, but he could not and did not change the ultimate Catholic doctrine on this which does leave the option open in at least some circumstances.

Oh, I see, we are all little Popes here and can completely judge for ourselves without any input from the Magisterium?
Jarnor23:
Do you even know what you're talking about???
Subsequent to the release of the encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, Cardinal Ratzinger (now, Pope Benedict XVI) issued a memorandum in which he pointed out that presumably because of the ambiguities that surround this question, there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics regarding when Capital Punishment should be used.
And so, there would seem to be room for discussion on this issue and that could be indicated by the fact that the Holy Father – the previous Holy Father, John Paul II – phrased it himself in a very tentative way on this subject.
He was clearly not trying to settle all the questions that are in this area. Furthermore, he was making a sociological judgment based on his estimation on the current world scene and, while Popes are protected in matters of Theology, and can even teach theological premises infallibly if they choose to do so, their understanding of the social realities all over the world and how to apply moral principles to all of those complex situations is not similarly guaranteed.
There are contingent factors around the world sociologically that kind of go beyond the Pope’s teaching sphere and, so, there’s kind of a fuzzy border between the moral principles and how they get applied in concrete individual situations, and its in that area that the limit of the Church’s Teaching Authority is reached in that fuzzy area, because the Church intends to propose basic principles for us but then it’s up to the laity who are on the ground, in concrete circumstances, to try to figure out how to apply those in particular cases.

The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty when it's the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

Matt-- I've been using I. I'll try the Em next time.

Plainly and simply, one who ignores and goes against every Church teaching they can, doing the bare minimum to be called a Catholic, isn't much of a Catholic at all.
No, I can't say that. Even though you are going against the explicit teaching of the Catholic Church -- namely, that the death penalty is morally permissable and whether it should be applied is a prudential judgment on which the teaching is not binding -- I can't say that you aren't much of a Catholic.

Actually, Foxfier, "check" allows one to move the King, move another piece in the way (if possible), or take the opposing piece that has the king in check. Checkmate (or just "mate") means that the king is in check and cannot get out of it in any way. Stalemate is when one person has no legitimate move (i.e., the king isn't in check, but the only moves available would put the king in check. The rules of the game don't allow that to happen.)
Regarding the tags, are you using "i" or "em" for your italics? I've had success with "em".

Jarnor, Carl, Rick, why are you assuming that those who think the death penalty might still be needed are ignoring or not considering the Church teaching on the topic? That really seems to be leaping to a conclusion. Not to mention that the whole thing is a red herring and has nothing to do with bias in the media.

I'm starting to think that there's a problem, since I triple-checked my tags....

You must think I'm Australian and you ordered something from me, since you asked for a check, mate. I only surmise because you, being incorrect, could not possibly otherwise be trying to say you actually WON that argument.
No, I assumed that you are familiar with chess. I'm horrible at the game, but even I know that in chess, when there is a checkmate, you either stay where you are and lose, or you move to a different position and the game goes on.
Simply put: The CHURCH doesn't teach anything of the sort. JPII and others have stated views, but those are not official teachings. Please stop stating that they are of the same binding nature as the prohibition of abortion, unless you can offer binging teachings to the contrary.
For the love of little green apples, even *Catholic Answers* says that it's a legitimate differing view! That means it's within the Church. That means that I'm just as Catholic as you.
Jeeze, I'm about ready to bring out that tired old barb of "more Catholic than the Pope" and leave it at that!

You must think I'm Australian and you ordered something from me, since you asked for a check, mate. I only surmise because you, being incorrect, could not possibly otherwise be trying to say you actually WON that argument.
Plainly and simply, one who ignores and goes against every Church teaching they can, doing the bare minimum to be called a Catholic, isn't much of a Catholic at all. If you fight everything the Church says is good, and accept everything they say is bad EXCEPT where they say HERE you have absolutely no choice, you're being legalistic and outside of the spirit of the Church.
And that's someplace one should not wish to be. But that's only my opinion I guess, and one should be perfectly happy to be outside of the Church's teachings, except the infallible ones.

What's binding is to give Church teaching serious consideration.

Rick- "perhaps" is still not binding.

on which the Pope has no more authority than any other Catholic.
But perhaps he has better judgment.

As for the argument about someone in prison ordering a killing, well they sure can do that from death row as well, can't they?
Which is an argument against the dragged out death sentences we have nowadays, not the death penalty.

It pretty much says what one would expect if they've read the Catechism - the death penalty, while allowed, is a last resort that should likely be unneeded in modern society
"Should be unneeded" is a prudential judgment, on which the Pope has no more authority than any other Catholic.

Carl, it means what it says.
Ok, then I'll take it that you're to listen to Church teaching on the subject.

And current Pope, pre-popehood did NOT carry infallibility in such a statement. I'd take the sitting Pope's opinion on that matter first.
.... Who has not issued an infallible statement, either.
Thus, it is your option.
Check mate.

Apparently waging war, any war, must be pretty awesome too by that standard. I mean, we clearly get to think WHATEVER we like with NO input from the Magisterium, according to this line of thought.

Carl, it means what it says.
Can we go back to the topic of the post?

And current Pope, pre-popehood did NOT carry infallibility in such a statement. I'd take the sitting Pope's opinion on that matter first.

There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty
Is that saying it's ok to go with whatever you think on the death penalty?

Just because you can mentally hold an opinion without being excommunicated does NOT mean that you're free to ignore the Church's teachings on it.

Here's a K of C pamphlet examining Catholic issues on the death penalty. I assume we don't find them too liberal? It pretty much says what one would expect if they've read the Catechism - the death penalty, while allowed, is a last resort that should likely be unneeded in modern society. http://www.kofc.org/un/rc/en/publications/cis/publ...
As for the argument about someone in prison ordering a killing, well they sure can do that from death row as well, can't they? Or even kill someone themselves there. I mean, they have NOTHING to lose then whatsoever either, which is oddly something someone was objecting to a life sentence about.
And then that little messy business people always like to ignore about innocents being on death row, as has happened in the past, and frankly, has probably happened right until an innocent was murdered on death row at least once by the state.
Be careful in hunting "liberals" that we don't become monsters ourselves.

you're just trying to fight, and you're not even doing it well.
I'm a true conservative.

Oh, I see, we are all little Popes here and can completely judge for ourselves without any input from the Magisterial?
Current Pope, pre-Popehood, on a topic he is very well acquainted with: "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."
Berk, I'm going to ignore you now. You've quite well shown to more than one person that you're just trying to fight, and you're not even doing it well.

Oh, I see, we are all little Popes here and can completely judge for ourselves without any input from the Magisterium?
If you are ignoring the teaching of the Magisterium without good reason, you are endangering yourself, AND others through this action. While the death penalty is allowed if it's the only way to preserve society, it is CLEARLY spoken against by our faith as some cure all measure the way you people are saying. Frankly, it's more than a little off putting that people will scream Cafeteria Catholic when their way isn't followed, but yet say everything's optional when it's their pet issue. We are to look to the Church for guidance, not for backing us up in our preconceived notions.
And I think the person who noticed that if a death sentence actually helped people repent, one should volunteer to be executed immediately perfectly caught the fallacy of such a mindset.
If we are brutalizers for Christ, it's hard to explain His mercy to others. Even more so to Him when He asks why you would take a more violent solution than needed in our society, if John Paul II is correct about this matter. Given he was the Pope, I kind of give him the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

we are dealing with a truly irrational mind.
The irrational mind is the victim mentality.

Which means that they not *take* my resources.
You can put your money in a tin can in the backyard if you want. No one will take it until you voluntarily offer it in trade with others. If you don't like the terms, you don't have to accept.