T
Theo2
Guest
I thought the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was also.
Are Pope Francis' statements about capital punishment infallible?
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I guess so. I was reading a book today in Adoration about the papacy that said it was just that one, but now that I have researched it, it appears you are right. But theologians disagree about whether it has ever been applied other than those two.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Isn’t it weird that an Ecumenical Councill would have a dogmatic constitution about one instance? That doctors of the Church, like St. Francis de Sales, would defend it before there was ever even one example? That makes no sense.
Unfortunately, likely due to a false irenicism (condemned by Vatican II), the dogma of papal infallibility has been unduly minimized. The unusual ceremonial attached to the two famous instances involving Marian dogmas have also minimized the other instances. The fact is, Popes have intervened to provide definitive judgments binding the whole Church many, many times.
At the First Vatican Council (which, among other things, was concerned with certain ideologies that said the Pope’s definitive judgments are subject to individual reason, which would only be the case if they were subject to error), when some bishops wanted to condition papal infallibility on the Pope following some procedure or using some formula, the relator for the Commissio de fide (charged with providing official explanations of Council documents to the Council Fathers) said this could not be done, because there were already so many instances with various procedures or even none at all:
“Thousands and thousands” might be a bit hyperbolic, but the point remains–it has been many times. Throughout history Popes have often intervened to provide definitive judgments in the areas of faith and morals, sometimes definitively condemning long lists of propositions (e.g. Coelestis Pastor of Bl. Innocent XI, Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus of St. Pius V, Unigenitus of Clement VI, Auctorem Fidei of Pius VI, etc., etc.; each condemned proposition is probably considered an individual judgment by the relator, Gasser, above accounting for the high number he gives) and sometimes definitively asserting a truth (e.g. like those definitions in Benedictus Deus of Benedict XII, Unam Sanctam of Boniface VIII, the dogmatic letter of St. Agatho, the Tome of St. Leo, etc.).
continued…
Last edited:
G
Genesis315
Guest
Just to add, some people ask for a definitive list of definitive judgments by the Pope, but this kind of misses the point. In fact, papal decrees and letters can be lost or forgotten over the course of time. Ordinarily, the ordinary Magisterium of the Church suffices to adequately teach the faith–that is the constant teaching of the true faith by Popes and bishops in their words, letters, and other official acts; the belief and handing on of the faith by the faithful in all times and places; in the Church’s worship and traditions, etc. Our faith is not just a list of papal definitions. When the clarity of a truth is cast into doubt (not in the sense that people know what the Church teaches but don’t believe it, but rather in the sense that what the Church actually teaches becomes uncertain) and the ordinary means fail to bring this clarity and unity of faith, it is the duty of the Pope to definitively settle the matter and call all to the unity and clarity of faith–that’s why this exercise of the Magisterium is called extraordinary–so these truths once again can be handed on by the ordinary means throughout the world for ever and ever.
Sadly, Popes themselves can occasionally cause this doubt to flourish, as was the case with John XXII’s promotion of certain errors related to the beatific vision. As a consequence, to remove all doubt and bring all back to the unity of the faith, his successor Benedict XII had to issue his famous definitive judgment on the matter in the constitution Benedictus Deus.
Sadly, Popes themselves can occasionally cause this doubt to flourish, as was the case with John XXII’s promotion of certain errors related to the beatific vision. As a consequence, to remove all doubt and bring all back to the unity of the faith, his successor Benedict XII had to issue his famous definitive judgment on the matter in the constitution Benedictus Deus.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Of course there could not be an instance of Papal Infallibility being formally applied until Papal Infallibility was declared as a doctrine by the Magesterium. Probably, at the time they recognized this doctrine, they anticipated it would be applied more often than it was. This may be a testament to the humility of subsequent popes to declare doctrine without the concurrence of the general Magesterium. I don’t think the doctrine was ever intended for the Pontiff to unilaterally declare doctrine that none of the Magesterium supported. It was probably intended to be used only to break deadlocks or other similar crises in the Church. Thankfully we have not had too much of that recently and the Church remains essentially of one accord under the protection of the Holy Spirit. Thus the need for applying Papal Infallibility is practically non-existent today. In the future, who knows?
It is a matter of debate whether these actions of the pope to bring together differing view constitute an application of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
E
Ender
Guest
The statement that capital punishment must be a legitimate defense of the common good is true, but the key phrase is not “legitimate defense”, but rather “common good.” If the common good is understood merely as physical protection then the statement is simply wrong, because that has never been the primary consideration regarding punishment. Pius XII put this in perspective in 1953:
…this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself.
It is justice (retribution) that both demands and justifies punishment, not protection. Surely justice ought to be considered a major element of the common good.
But punishment has never been justified by appeal to legitimate defense and is not so today. This is the significance of post #15 by Genesis315. Section 2267 cannot be reconciled with 2266.
C
commenter
Guest
I think St JP 2 applied infallibility in defense of the Church’s teaching on ordination of only men to priesthood. In today’s environment, I can see challenges coming to many aspects of faith and morals. Popes may well need to identify some things as infallibly taught that are now taken for granted.
Last edited:
M
Michael96
Guest
A curious benefit of all of this is that almost everyone now knows what it is like to disagree with a Pope. The days of anyone saying “the Pope said it, so you must believe it” are well and truly over. We all recognise that we have our own understanding that grows over time and it cannot simply be changed, even by a Pope, as if it were a matter of erasing one belief and changing it to another.
I hope, and think, we will all (whether we find ourselves naturally agreeing with Pope Francis or not), as a community, come out of this Papacy a little more mature in thought, and accepting of differing views within the one Church.
Last edited:
M
MarlboroMan
Guest
No. The Death Penalty was licit, is licit, and until Christ returns will remain licit. It is the Biblically ordained punishment for many crimes.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Not necessarily…Genesis315:
It can be argued, as you say, that the death penalty would be “a proportionate redress” in the case of murder. The problem we are dealing with here, however, is that the Pope has now explicitly rejected that argument, and has enshrined his rejection in his new n. 2267.
This is very subtle, so bear with me.
The Holy Father said (essentially) that the death penalty is no longer necessary because other means are available to the state. It’s the reasoning he uses that’s very important to note here.
This actually does not change what was previously written in the Catechism (essentially, that the death penalty is a ‘last resort’).
If such “other means” prove to be either unavailable, or ineffective, one could still argue that the death penalty remains a legitimate last-option.
W
whichwaytogo47
Guest
The Catholic community is a great community. We must have respect for authority. We must give Pope Francis the benefit of the doubt. That said, sometimes he reaches (like we all do) and doesn’t appreciate that others may respectably have a different opinion. This is where he can be wrong even though he’s the Holy Father and the head of the church. But because of his position, we should respect the office. We can/should respect the teachings of the church but don’t need to agree with everything he says, especially any private revelations or personal opinion.
The Bible has many things that modern societies do not condone. Furthermore, the Bible dictates the stories of imperfect people whom lived. We don’t stone people for adultery. With any moral question, societies need to decide what is moral, immoral, or amoral. Unfortunately in life, you have to pick between moral outcomes. Morality in my opinion is universal and not relative. Not all laws are moral, but not all reactions to unjust laws are moral either. The most dangerous thing is to assume that your perception is moral; there are cases where even what you consider is moral is actually immoral and thus informing your conscience is important.
M
MarlboroMan
Guest
Then I believe the modern societies are wrong. God is never wrong.
W
whichwaytogo47
Guest
. I was trying to argue that what if the other means are not immediately evident to be ineffective and appear effective at first glance.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Last resort.FrDavid96:
If the other means are effective, then most certainly, we should be using them, and not the death penalty.
W
whichwaytogo47
Guest
I agree. In many ways, they are wrong. You could argue that same sex marriage and transgender issues are where modern societies went awry. You could argue that they also have become moral relativists with abortion and socialized medicine. When we have human rights panels that limit what treatment people can receive for the benefit of others (i.e. it costs too much), we begin to go down the path of moral relativism.
W
whichwaytogo47
Guest
Agreed. But if it is proven that it is not effective, we need to not bury our heads in the sand. And if there is evidence that our methods cannot be used to contain a certain criminal, than we need to reconsider what punishment is necessary, including solitary confinement if necessary, to ensure the safety of the society.
Last edited:
D
deMontfort
Guest
Considering previous Popes have written and stated the opposite, Pope Francis’ statements on the death penalty can’t be infallible since the principles of infallibility are possessed by those previous popes and doctrine can’t contradict doctrine.
P
PetraG
Guest
The Pope has not said that capital punishment has never been or never could be morally permissible.
The Pope and Magesterium are saying that with the law enforcement profession in its current state and given the current state in understanding of what does and does not have a deterrent effect on murder rates, the death penalty is not a permissible exception to the usual moral standard that we do not take human life with premeditation.
It ought to also be considered that there is a great deal of evidence that the fear of capital punishment is more likely to cause an innocent suspect who is in custody to falsely enter a guilty plea, preferring life in prison to the threat of execution, than it is to prevent someone contemplating murder from actually doing it. There is also a preponderance of evidence that sentences of capital punishment fall unequally onto the poor and the less-intelligent compared to richer and smarter practitioners of the same crime. A wealthy murderer can expect to enjoy preferential treatment compared to a poor one, which ought to be a scandal to anyone, Christian or not. Both of these raise the specter that capital punishment has had the unintended effect of becoming an engine of injustice rather than acting as the tool of justice it has always been intended to be.
The short answer, however, is that the principles have not changed. What has changed is the understanding of what were considered mitigating factors that warranted making execution an exception to the normal rule, which is–of course!!–“thou shalt not kill.” Of course someone who cannot accept this understanding would arrive at a very different conclusion without any bad intention.
The Pope and Magesterium are saying that with the law enforcement profession in its current state and given the current state in understanding of what does and does not have a deterrent effect on murder rates, the death penalty is not a permissible exception to the usual moral standard that we do not take human life with premeditation.
It ought to also be considered that there is a great deal of evidence that the fear of capital punishment is more likely to cause an innocent suspect who is in custody to falsely enter a guilty plea, preferring life in prison to the threat of execution, than it is to prevent someone contemplating murder from actually doing it. There is also a preponderance of evidence that sentences of capital punishment fall unequally onto the poor and the less-intelligent compared to richer and smarter practitioners of the same crime. A wealthy murderer can expect to enjoy preferential treatment compared to a poor one, which ought to be a scandal to anyone, Christian or not. Both of these raise the specter that capital punishment has had the unintended effect of becoming an engine of injustice rather than acting as the tool of justice it has always been intended to be.
The short answer, however, is that the principles have not changed. What has changed is the understanding of what were considered mitigating factors that warranted making execution an exception to the normal rule, which is–of course!!–“thou shalt not kill.” Of course someone who cannot accept this understanding would arrive at a very different conclusion without any bad intention.
Last edited:
J
James214
Guest
Punishments for crimes were prescribed under the Law of Moses. Jewish ceremonial law was fulfilled with the coming of Jesus as the Messiah and we are not obliged to follow it. There are no biblically ordained mandates or prescriptions for the death penalty, or any other criminal punishment, under the New Covenant.
E
Ender
Guest
This assumes that the primary justification for capital punishment is that it provides protection for society, but that is in fact not what justifies it.
I don’t think this is an accurate understanding of the previous version of 2267. Capital punishment is justified only if it is deserved by the criminal; it is not justified based on whether or not it protects us.
A penalty is just only if it is "commensurate with the gravity of the crime." This is an obligation (CCC 2266) that is not dependent on the amount of protection the punishment does or does not provide. The gravity of the crime determines the gravity of the punishment. The concern with protection does not alter that.
- Status