Does the pope weigh in on every death penalty case?

[TheMadHun]

I recall Bush got a couple of comments from him when he was executing people as governor of Texas. But is it just automatic, pro forma, or does the pope review each case in the same way a governor reviews clemency requests?

And has the pope ever reviewed a case and decided not to ask for clemency? A watchtower sniper, or someone who shot up a church official or something.

[SentientMeat]

“Ever” as in *ever*? (See especially Ad extirpanda, 1252.)

[Estilicon]

@SentientMeat

“Ever” as in *ever*? (See especially Ad extirpanda, 1252.)

he following parameters were placed on the use of torture:[1]

*** that it did not cause loss of life or limb** (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum)
* that it was used only once
* that the Inquisitor deemed the evidence against the accused to be virtually certain.

You could take into account that torture was used in medieval times because, in principle, no accused could be condemned without a confession. Of course, it was sort of barbaric but it was life. What that Pope did was to regulate its use, by measures like this, torture was “humanized” and then gradually abolished (at least in the west), till the 20 century when people like Stalin, Hitler, Videla and the aforementioned Bush began to implement it again.
But you only wanted an off topic rant against the RCC, didn’t you?

[SentientMeat]

the following parameters were placed on the use of torture:[1]

• that it did not cause loss of life or limb (citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum).

Just to clarfiy this: So the rack, thumb screws and water torture were employed to gain a confession, and the heretic could be handed over for burning to death thereafter if he withdrew this confession.

@Estilicon

You could take into account that torture was used in medieval times because, in principle, no accused could be condemned without a confession. Of course, it was sort of barbaric but it was life. What that Pope did was to regulate its use, by measures like this, torture was “humanized”

This is just absurd revisionism. The “humanity” of the Inquisition in the following four centuries was utterly absent.

But you only wanted an off topic rant against the RCC, didn’t you?

I apologise for off-topicality - I thought that pointing out that popes and executions are not historical opponents might enjoin debate.

[Estilicon]

@SentientMeat

I apologise for off-topicality - I thought that pointing out that popes and executions are not historical opponents might enjoin debate.

It’s off topic because you are comparing a Pope of 1252 with one of 2009. In almost 800 years lot’s of things changed: including tolerance for torture or death penalties.
It was just a cheap shot at the RCC, Christianity, etc… something that, franlky, is getting old and boring around here…

[SentientMeat]

@Estilicon

It was just a cheap shot at the RCC, Christianity, etc… something that, franlky, is getting old and boring around here…

Again, apologies - I haven’t been around here for a while, and thought that someone might defend or whitewash such atrocities in an interesting conversation (let’s face it, the OP is a little dull, don’t you think?) Since there’s no such defence (thankfully, I suppose) I’ll bow out.

[Saintly_Loser]

@TheMadHun

I recall Bush got a couple of comments from him when he was executing people as governor of Texas. But is it just automatic, pro forma, or does the pope review each case in the same way a governor reviews clemency requests?

And has the pope ever reviewed a case and decided not to ask for clemency? A watchtower sniper, or someone who shot up a church official or something.

The Catholic Church is generally against the death penalty in pretty much any circumstances that might arise (in the developed world, at least), no matter what the crime.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

So, while the death penalty is not considered to be inherently wrong, the circumstances necessary to justify its use pretty much don’t exist today.

[Peter_Morris]

I very much doubt that the pope looks at every death penalty case. That would be a full time job all by itself, and he has many other things to do.

[the_first_supraliminal]

Nah. He’s just another old guy rocking on the portico, droning on about things past, fussing when his tea gets tepid. I bet he has time to write to the newspaper once a week about the lack of courtesy among teens on their vespas stirring up the pigeons.