A Scriptural Death Penalty Case

[o_mlly]

If you are right then Paul acknowledged something as good that is in fact evil.

No, Paul’s instruction is directed to the Christian citizenry of Rome. What is good is obedience to God’s appointed ruler who rules justly. When does the ruler rule justly? Verse 7 gives us Paul’s answer:

Pay to all their dues … respect to whom respect is due (Romans 13:7).

Romans, CHAPTER 13 | USCCB

Caesar is not entitled to obedience when such obedience would nullify God’s prior claim to the believers’ moral decision becomes clear in the light of the following verses.

When love directs the Christian’s moral decisions, the interest of law in basic concerns, such as familial relationships, sanctity of life, and security of property, is safeguarded (Rom 13:9). Indeed, says Paul, the same applies to any other commandment (Rom 13:9), whether one in the Mosaic code or one drawn up by local magistrates under imperial authority.

The relevant point is that Jesus never even indirectly refuted capital punishment; as clearly neither did Paul.

I think not. The OP’s citation about the adulteress can be seen as Jesus’ indirect refutation to cp. Jesus did not refute the other Mosaic Laws in which violation incurred cp. Does that constitute a ratification of those laws? I think not. Did Jesus or Paul refute abortion? No, and not doing so does not justify abortions.

 

[Ender]

Paul’s instruction is directed to the Christian citizenry of Rome.

Your explanation of a segment in Paul’s letter to the Romans is not all that relevant to my reference to his comments in the Acts of the Apostles and his letter to the Hebrews.

The OP’s citation about the adulteress can be seen as Jesus’ indirect refutation to cp.

This is pure invention, and can be seen from the fact that none of the Fathers or Doctors interpreted this incident that way. There is nothing to support this position aside from wishful thinking. Cite a single example (more than 30 years old) where that passage is interpreted as you have done.

St Ambrose discussed it (Letter 26) but entirely in the context of the trap being set for Jesus, and of the relationship between sin, reform, and punishment.

The Lord answered her, Neither do I condemn thee. Observe how He has modified His own sentence; that the Jews might have no ground of allegation against Him for the absolution of the woman, but by complaining only draw down a charge upon themselves; for the woman is dismissed not absolved; and this because there was no accuser, not because her innocence was established…He reformed the criminal, He did not absolve the sin.

Even Francis did not use that incident to condemn capital punishment. He spoke about mercy and forgiveness; at no point did he suggest that this case had anything at all to do with capital punishment.

“He doesn’t tell her that adultery is not a sin, but he doesn’t condemn her with the law”. This, the Pope explained, is “the mystery of Jesus’ mercy … in being merciful Jesus” goes beyond “the law which commanded that she be stoned”. “Mercy,” the Pope explained, “is something which is difficult to understand: it doesn’t eliminate sin”, for “it is God’s forgiveness” that does this.”. (L’Osservatore Romano, 2014)

If you’re going to argue that this incident shows Jesus opposed capital punishment then you have the problem of explaining why it doesn’t condemn all punishment. The woman not only wasn’t stoned, she received no punishment whatsoever even thought she admitted the sin.

Jesus did not refute the other Mosaic Laws in which violation incurred cp. Does that constitute a ratification of those laws? I think not.

You’re right: he did not condemn any of the laws prescribing capital punishment, so on what basis should we do so? If he bothered to revoke dietary laws why would he ignore something so significant as laws commanding/permitting the death penalty?

Did Jesus or Paul refute abortion? No, and not doing so does not justify abortions.

Abortion was already condemned; their non-comments left the situation unchanged. Capital punishment was expected: why would their non-comments not leave that situation unchanged as well? How is it that silence is meaningless when it comes to abortion, but significant when discussing the death penalty?

 

[o_mlly]

Your explanation …

I cited the USCCB’s explanation.

St Ambrose discussed it …

Your citation of St. Ambrose’s interpretation does not indicate an affirmation of the death penalty. Rather, the bishop teaches in the same citation against it:

The woman too was counted worthy to be absolved, seeing that, on the departure of the Jews, she remained alone with Jesus. …
Then Jesus lifted up His head, and said to the woman, Where are those thine accusers, hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee, go, and sin no more. 176 See, O reader, these Divine mysteries, and the mercy of Christ. When the woman is accused, Christ stoops His head, but when the accusers retire He lifts it up again; thus we see that He would have no man condemned, but all absolved.

If you’re going to argue that this incident shows Jesus opposed capital punishment then you have the problem of explaining why it doesn’t condemn all punishment. The woman not only wasn’t stoned, she received no punishment whatsoever even thought she admitted the sin.

We do not know what punishment the woman did or did not suffer whether self-imposed or otherwise. We do know that capital punishment is different in kind and not in degree to other punishments in as much as if imposed in error no remedy exists.

 

[o_mlly]

You’re right: he did not condemn any of the laws prescribing capital punishment, so on what basis should we do so? If he bothered to revoke dietary laws why would he ignore something so significant as laws commanding/permitting the death penalty?

Abortion was already condemned; their non-comments left the situation unchanged. Capital punishment was expected: why would their non-comments not leave that situation unchanged as well? How is it that silence is meaningless when it comes to abortion, but significant when discussing the death penalty?

Your arguments are essentially, “Why did Jesus not fix the Jewish wrongheadedness regarding Gen 9:6 and the Mosaic Laws requiring the death penalty during his three years of public ministry?”

He didn’t but we have His promise:

I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.* Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Mat 16:19).

12“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.

13* But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth.h He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming (John 16:12-13).

Either the popes have the special charism of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ or they do not. I believe they do. I also believe that the inspiration that gives one the truth does not always give a complete rationale in the same moment to defend the truth just transmitted. Again, I tell you, “Stay tuned”.

 

[Ender]

I cited the USCCB’s explanation.

The explanation was for Paul’s words in Romans. The sections I cited were Acts and Letter to the Hebrews. Just because you cited something the USCCB said doesn’t mean it’s relevant.

Your citation of St. Ambrose’s interpretation does not indicate an affirmation of the death penalty.

Nor did I cite it to make that point - as I said. Ambrose discussed the incident with regard to sin, reform, and punishment in general. That is, he never even considered this to be a comment concerning what kind of punishment she should receive. Nor (and this seems quite relevant) did Francis when he commented on this incident.

I wasn’t suggesting that Ambrose supported capital punishment, only that your reference to this incident as showing Christ’s opposition to it has no support whatever within the church. As I said, if you cite this case to oppose capital punishment then you need to explain why it doesn’t apply to all punishment, especially the part you highlighted: “thus we see that He would have no man condemned, but all absolved.”

We do know that capital punishment is different in kind and not in degree to other punishments in as much as if imposed in error no remedy exists.

A fact we would expect God to have known when he commanded Moses to apply it.

 

[o_mlly]

Just because you cited something the USCCB said doesn’t mean it’s relevant.

Just because you may think it is irrelevant does not make it so.

What we are looking for still is your magisterial citations supporting the death penalty in the last 30 years.

As I said, if you cite this case to oppose capital punishment then you need to explain why it doesn’t apply to all punishment …

I did:

We do know that capital punishment is different in kind and not in degree to other punishments in as much as if imposed in error no remedy exists.

? God did not command Moses to apply capital punishment. The divine command to Moses is, “Thou shalt not kill”.

Please spare us your own eisegesis or that of other non-magisterial sources on how capital punishment is not contrary to the gospel. As I said, this debate is an appeal to authority and that authority is the teaching office of the Catholic church as identified many posts ago.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

sealabeag:

The Holy Father actually says this:
“It must be clearly stated that the death penalty is an inhumane measure that, regardless of how it is carried out, abases human dignity. It is per se contrary to the Gospel , because it entails the willful suppression of a human life that never ceases to be sacred in the eyes of its Creator”

One must be very cautious in commenting on papal announcements, nonetheless this statement appears to directly contradict what the church has always taught. That position was based on Scripture.

It is lawful for a Christian magistrate to punish with death disturbers of the public peace. It is proved, first, from the Scriptures, for in the law of nature, of Moses, and of the Gospels… (St Bellarmine)

There is also this:

in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true sense of Holy Scripture which our Holy Mother Church has held and holds, to whom it belongs to judge the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

What, then, was the interpretation of the Fathers regarding capital punishment?

Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment (Dulles)

If we assume Francis’ words are his personal perspective on the matter then there is no problem for the church as an institution. If, however, it is assumed to be a doctrinal pronouncement then the problem can hardly be overstated.

Quite so . . . a more detailed comparison of this particular quotation - referenced from Pope Francis’ Discourse [of 11 October 2017] to Participants in the Meeting Organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization Il venticinquesimo anniversario, n. 9 - with subsequent pronouncements of greater authoritative weight proves rather revealing. The aforementioned absolutist assertions from His Holiness have not been included in either: (1) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Rescript [of 2 August 2018] from the Most Holy Audience on the New Redaction of n. 2267 to the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Death Penalty; or (2) Pope Francis’ Encyclical Letter [of 3 October 2020] on Fraternity and Social Friendship Fratelli tutti.

Given the pope’s pastoral reflections [in his personal capacity as a private theologian] were originally addressed to a limited audience via a minor allocution may well explain their prominent omission from an intervention in the prudential order [in his official capacity as the Supreme Pontiff] addressed to the Universal Church via a catechetical revision and/or major encyclical (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Instruction [of 24 May 1990] on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian Donum veritatis, n. 24)?

 

[o_mlly]

The aforementioned absolutist assertions from His Holiness have not been included …

We have agreed that the citation from Pope Francis lacks full magisterial authority:

Yes, the Address you cited is not a magisterial document.

However, the Pope is exercising his teaching authority which always precedes the exercise of magisterial authority:

… The ordinary magisterium, one must see, takes a long, long time, to develop; it requires repetition and consistency over many generations, this, not simply on the part of popes but also by the bishops around the world (Edward Peters, 2018).

At this point, we are not looking for inclusion of the papal teaching in more formal documents but refutation by bishops in communion with the Holy See:

… that within that body of magisterial documents there is one or more that contradicts Pope Francis by teaching that “the death penalty was indeed not contrary to the Gospel”.

Do you have such a citation in any form from a collection of Catholic bishops that supports the continuation of the state’s use of capital punishment?

Death Penalty - Capital Punishment | USCCB

Liberian Bishops decry the death penalty and condemn violence - Vatican News

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/..._to_oppose_capital_punishment_internationally

CRBC On Death Penalty
the Chinese Catholic Bishops’ Conference declares again the abolition of the death penalty

I have not yet found such a declaration from any synod of Catholic bishops. As Peters noted, the movement toward a sensus fidelium which believes that capital punishment is inadmissible takes generations. I believe the movement so far to ban the death penalty has not only a solid beginning but also unopposed traction.

 

[Ender]

Your arguments are essentially, “Why did Jesus not fix the Jewish wrongheadedness regarding Gen 9:6 and the Mosaic Laws requiring the death penalty during his three years of public ministry?”

No, that is not at all my argument. First, Genesis 9:6 was a command God gave Noah, not Moses, and that covenant is in place for all time. Second, if in fact God’s explicit commands were misunderstood it would seem that Jesus bears some of the responsibility for allowing that to happen. Since this is clearly not possible, where is the argument for “wrongheadedness”? Third, it wasn’t the Jews who would have been in error but the Catholic Church inasmuch as the Fathers, Doctors, Popes, councils, and Magisterium for 2000 years taught error (if your position is correct).

Either the popes have the special charism of the Holy Spirit promised by Christ or they do not.

What special charism would that be, and wouldn’t all popes have it equally? Francis has taken a position (arguably) contrary to what every prior pope held, and (unarguably) contrary to what the church taught until at most 30 years ago. If Francis is protected from error by the Holy Spirit how do you explain how other popes - equally protected by that same Spirit - could express the opposite position?

 

[Ender]

What we are looking for still is your magisterial citations supporting the death penalty in the last 30 years.

This is one of those “harmful to the church” arguments I especially oppose. It suggests that the church’s sacred tradition is irrelevant, the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors have no particular authority, and right or wrong is whatever the current pope wants it to be. But let’s look at what was said even in the last 30 or so years.

It would be fitting to set aside the death penalty exacted by society on those found guilty of crimes of extreme gravity. Although the punishment is legitimate, the Church hopes for a habitual recourse to clemency . . . [Revised Project (1989), 3541, quoted in Schonborn, 10].

2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. The traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. (1992 1st edition CCC)

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… (1997 2cd edition CCC)

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time. (CCC 2260 - unrevised)

The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: " If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man ", is said in Genesis (9,6) . (JPII, Regina Caeli, 2002)

None of this is compatible with the assertion that capital punishment is per se contrary to the Gospel. Perhaps you need to narrow the window to just the last year and a half.

 

[o_mlly]

o_mlly:

What we are looking for still is your magisterial citations supporting the death penalty in the last 30 years.

This is one of those “harmful to the church” arguments I especially oppose. It suggests that the church’s sacred tradition is irrelevant, the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors have no particular authority, and right or wrong is whatever the current pope wants it to be. But let’s look at what was said even in the last 30 or so years.

? There is no argument offered; only an inquiry for evidence of support for capital punishment in the episcopate. What I find is just the opposite – an affirmation of inadmissibility.

But let’s look at what was said even in the last 30 or so years.

The Revised Project (1989) was the fourth step in developing a compilation that could be produced as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). The document revised the 1987 draft with the (name removed by moderator)uts of 40 consultors worldwide. The 1989 revised draft received 938 replies and over 24,000 suggestions. As such, the “Revised Project (1989)” cannot be cited over and against the final product, i.e., The CCC.

The first sentence of CCC#2260 which you omitted discloses the teaching to be imparted: The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

Your edited citation to Regina Caeli in which you omitted the preamble to Gen9:6 and following clearly shows the reference to Gen 9:6 is not an affirmation of the death penalty but of respect for human life and the necessity of mercy as prerequisites to peace.

1. Peace is the gift of God . The Creator himself has written the law of respect for life on the human heart: " If anyone sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has he made man ", is said in Genesis (9,6). When the merciless logic of arms prevails everywhere, only God can redirect hearts to thoughts of peace. Only he can give the energies that are necessary to be freed from hatred and the thirst for revenge and to undertake the process of negotiation for an agreement and for peace.

Please stop mining documents that contain Gen 9:6 and edit them to purport what they do not. And, specifically, none of your references refer to the gospel as being non-contrary to the death penalty.

 

[o_mlly]

First, Genesis 9:6 was a command God gave Noah, not Moses …

You’re welcome.

… and that covenant is in place for all time.

No, commands are not covenants.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator:

The aforementioned absolutist assertions from His Holiness have not been included …

We have agreed that the citation from Pope Francis lacks full magisterial authority:

Indeed . . . wonder why?

 

[Ender]

There is no argument offered; only an inquiry for evidence of support for capital punishment in the episcopate. What I find is just the opposite – an affirmation of inadmissibility.

Even limiting the search to the last 30 years (as if the first 2000 years were irrelevant) doesn’t support your position. JPII and BXVI never expressed the opinion that capital punishment was inadmissible. In fact they were clear that it was admissible in certain circumstances.

The first sentence of CCC#2260 which you omitted discloses the teaching to be imparted: The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

I didn’t cite that part because it is irrelevant to the point, which is that God’s command regarding capital punishment, as explained by Gn 9:6, is “necessary for all time.”

Your edited citation to Regina Caeli in which you omitted the preamble to Gen9:6 and following clearly shows the reference to Gen 9:6 is not an affirmation of the death penalty but of respect for human life and the necessity of mercy as prerequisites to peace.

Again, the preamble in no way changes the meaning of Gn 9:6, but one has to admire the mental dexterity involved in believing that when a passage of Scripture says “You shall do X” it really means “You shall not do X.” The church has always accepted that passage as meaning exactly what it says; it is the basis for her 2000 year teaching that capital punishment is a just punishment.

Please stop mining documents that contain Gen 9:6 and edit them to purport what they do not.

You mean, “Stop presuming that Gen 9:6 means what it says”? How about this one?

So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.(1) And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide.
(1) Gn 9:5-6

This is from the Catechism of Trent…or does that not count because it is more than 30 years old?

No, commands are not covenants.

That command is part of God’s covenant with Noah, right in there with “Be fruitful and multiply” in the section helpfully titled (RSVCE) The Covenant with Noah. Since that covenant will endure forever we can understand why the catechism says “This teaching remains necessary for all time” in referring to Gn 9:5-6.

 

[o_mlly]

Even limiting the search to the last 30 years (as if the first 2000 years were irrelevant) doesn’t support your position. JPII and BXVI never expressed the opinion that capital punishment was inadmissible. In fact they were clear that it was admissible in certain circumstances.

Referring to the positions of St. JPII, Benedict XVI, Francis and the numerous synod of bishops cited as my position is correct. Your argument is not with me but with your bishop and your Pope.

I didn’t cite that part [The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:] because it is irrelevant …

Only irrelevant if one erroneously dismisses the entire theme of this section of the Catechism, " I. RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE."

Again, the preamble in no way changes the meaning of Gn 9:6 …

The theme of the Regina Caeli cited is the celebration of Divine Mercy Sunday. The mental gymnastic needed to extract from that document a citation and claim it supports capital punishment is indeed astonishing.

So much does God abominate homicide that He declares in Holy Writ that of the very beast of the field He will exact vengeance for the life of man, commanding the beast that injures man to be put to death.(1) And if (the Almighty) commanded man to have a horror of blood,’ He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide.
(1) Gn 9:5-6

This is from the Catechism of Trent…or does that not count because it is more than 30 years old?

The citation does the exact opposite of what you claim. To wit: He did so for no other reason than to impress on his mind the obligation of entirely refraining, both in act and desire, from the enormity of homicide.
Is not capital punishment “homicide”? Of course, it is.

That command is part of God’s covenant with Noah …

No, the commands are not part of that which “remains necessary for all time”* covenants. For instance:

In view of the human propensity to violence, God changes the original prohibition against eating meat (USCCB Gen 9).

 

[MNathaniel]

lol this thread is still happening

 

[Ender]

Only irrelevant if one erroneously dismisses the entire theme of this section of the Catechism, " I. RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE. "

What I reject is your interpretation that has the passage mean the opposite of what it says. As for “respect for human life”, here is what the Catechism of Trent says about using capital punishment:

The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder.

That is, applying the death penalty for (at least) the crime of murder is an act of obedience to the commandment against murder. This is the meaning of Gn 9:6 when God explains that murderers are to be executed because man’s life is so valuable.

The mental gymnastic needed to extract from that document a citation and claim it supports capital punishment is indeed astonishing.

So, that passage doesn’t mean what it clearly says?

Is not capital punishment “homicide”? Of course, it is.

That is the literal meaning, yes, but it is clearly not the meaning it has in that passage. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” isn’t interpreted literally, neither should this be. If all homicide was banned the church’s teachings on killing in just wars or in self defense would be self contradictory.

No, the commands are not part of that which “remains necessary for all time”* covenants. For instance:

In view of the human propensity to violence, God changes the original prohibition against eating meat (USCCB Gen 9).

Again you have used a citation about one passage (Gn 9:2-3) as an explanation for the meaning of an altogether different passage (9:6), which suggests the difficulties in supporting your position. But go back to the catechism: what is the teaching that “remains necessary for all time” referred to in 2260? Given that the section quotes Gn 9:5-6 it is not clear what else it could refer to.

 

[o_mlly]

What I reject is your interpretation …

… the meaning of Gn 9:6 when God explains that murderers are to be executed [is] because man’s life is so valuable.

… but it is clearly not the meaning it has in that passage.

I rather think that your interpretations are the questionable ones.

If you believe that the citations I’ve offered from recent popes and bishops on their teaching on the use of capital punishment are disordered then one would think you could cite other sitting bishops who agree with you.

We agree that Pope Francis’s use if the word “inadmissible” needs clarification. Other than that most recent development on the use of capital punishment, do you have citations from contemporary bishops that teach contrary to the recent popes and synods of bishops that support your position?

 

[Ender]

If you believe that the citations I’ve offered from recent popes and bishops on their teaching on the use of capital punishment are disordered then one would think you could cite other sitting bishops who agree with you.

You believe your position is correct, as do I. We each appeal to documents the church has produced to support that position. It is therefore not the church with whom we disagree, but with each other. I reject your understanding, you oppose mine, and it is important to recognize that we have the church “on our side” only to the extent that we correctly understand what she actually teaches.

It seems to me that the great weakness in your position are your references to “sitting” and “contemporary” bishops, and to limiting citations to those in the last 30 years. We cannot simply write off everything the church has said on the subject prior to JPII; the church herself rejects that approach. What is necessary is not choosing this and ignoring that, but arriving at a position that incorporates both this and that. Specifically it means finding a position that, as much as possible, includes both the old and the new in a meaningful way that is faithful to both.

…do you have citations from contemporary bishops that teach contrary to the recent popes and synods of bishops that support your position?

First, my position is not really contrary to the recent popes and I would not expect to find bishops who were contrary to them either. Second, the absence of such comments is not really that significant; it does not signify consent. Here, however, is a comment that expresses the position I hold:

The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

That’s it. That is my entire position. Opposition by the last three popes is a prudential judgment that the use of capital punishment is unwise, not that its use is immoral. Now it is surely true that Francis has gone beyond JPII and BXVI, and you can reasonably argue that he has called it immoral per se, but that is an issue that belongs to his comments alone, and if you take that line you have to argue for Francis and against the entirety of church history, including his immediate predecessors… and that position is unsupportable.

 

[o_mlly]

Opposition by the last three popes is a prudential judgment that the use of capital punishment is unwise, not that its use is immoral.

That summation, assuming honest and intelligent men would never do that which is unwise, would make the last 30 years of Catholic teaching on the moral use of capital punishment a “nothingburger”.

I think there has been a significant change. Prior to JPII teaching on the state’s moral use of capital punishment required two necessary circumstances:

1. identity fully determined
2. guilt fully determined

In developing the doctrine, JPII added a third circumstance:

1. bloodless means are not available to protect society

If you agree that the state’s prudential calculus on the moral use of capital punishment now must consider the third circumstance and find it also true then we agree so far.

As to Pope Francis’ development, I am perhaps more patient than you that clarification will come in due course. However, until I understand the moral meaning of “inadmissible” the teaching remains ambiguous and I cannot follow what I do not understand. If those who do the state’s work of making such a decision also find the teaching ambiguous then I would allow that the same criteria ought guide them.

Nevertheless, the church in the last 30 years has through the popes and bishops clearly, it seems to me, directed the laity to abolish the use of capital punishment.