Are Pope Francis' statements about capital punishment infallible?

[FrDavid96]

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.

If such “other means” prove to be either unavailable, or ineffective, one could still argue that the death penalty remains a legitimate last-option.

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.

The two goals (punishment matches the offense & protecting society) are not mutually exclusive, but rather go together.

The old version of the Catechism said

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.

That version still appears on the Vatican website
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

I wrote “last resort” simply for brevity. I didn’t think there was a need to go into every detail.

 

[Ender]

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.

That was not what the church taught. She always accepted the intentional taking of life for capital punishment and war.

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)

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.

One can make a reasonable (if not necessarily accurate) objection to the use of capital punishment on practical grounds. Given that the acceptance of capital punishment was the virtually unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the church (as well as the first 260+ popes) I don’t believe a reasonable objection can be raised on moral grounds.

 

[FrDavid96]

… I don’t believe a reasonable objection can be raised on moral grounds.

That’s exactly the point I’m making here.

The recent changes by HH Francis are changes based not so much on moral grounds, but on practical ones: namely, that other means of punishment are available to the state.

So, morally, the death penalty is still permissible (even given the change in the Catechism). It is still permissible because it is possible that such “other means” might not always be available to the state in the future, as they were not available in the past.

 

[Ender]

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.

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. (Gn 9:5-6)

The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time. (CCC 2260)

That directive is part of God’s covenant with Noah, and will never be abrogated.

The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel. (CCC 58)

 

[commenter]

The catechism section on Capital Punishment was modified before. The 1566 version was updated under authority of St. JP II in 1992. He updated it again in 1997. Pope Francis is developing it further, along the same lines. I think each modification is consistently in the same direction. We do not have any reversal of teaching, or going off on a tangent. It is just getting stricter.

If a catechism entry were to announce that the state now has no responsibility to protect public safety, THAT would be false teaching. If the Church now finds fewer means are now acceptable or necessary to reach that fixed, permanent goal, that is ok.

 

[Ender]

If a catechism entry were to announce that the state now has no responsibility to protect public safety, THAT would be false teaching. If the Church now finds fewer means are now acceptable or necessary to reach that fixed, permanent goal, that is ok.

This is part of the problem: punishment’s primary function is not providing protection. That is a misunderstanding, so saying capital punishment is no longer needed for protection and is therefore inadmissible is a bit irrelevant. The question is whether it is needed to satisfy the primary objective, which has not even been addressed.

 

[PetraG]

That was not what the church taught. She always accepted the intentional taking of life for capital punishment and war.

“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” (Catechism of Pius X)

Yes, and at the time it was considered both a just and necessary punishment and a deterrent, which was a reasonable conclusion based on what was known and had been tried at the time.

The evidence now is that
a) this sentence is not justly handed down, but falls disproportionately on poorer people.
b) societies who abandon this punishment do not see a rise in murder, showing that incarceration has a deterrent effect that is as effective.
c) the current state of penal systems around the world render this punishment unnecessary for public protection.

One can make a reasonable (if not necessarily accurate) objection to the use of capital punishment on practical grounds. Given that the acceptance of capital punishment was the virtually unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the church (as well as the first 260+ popes) I don’t believe a reasonable objection can be raised on moral grounds.

Moral grounds always have to do with practical knowledge concerning the conditions under which moral principles are applied: that is, what is known with regards to cause and effect and what is known with regards to whether a certain punishment is meted out equitably. When such things are not known, it is necessary to use reasoning in place of concrete evidence.

When we have more information, however, we are morally bound to make use of it. We cannot pretend we don’t know now what we did not know then. Well, the information has been stacking up for a long time, to the point that it is not morally possible to set it aside as being subject to reasonable doubt. Doubting the evidence is not currently the most reasonable conclusion. It is not impossible that the evidence is wrong, but it is not reasonable to conclude that it is.

 

[Ender]

Yes, and at the time it was considered both a just and necessary punishment and a deterrent, which was a reasonable conclusion based on what was known and had been tried at the time.

No, moral law was not based on reasonable conclusions about what effect this or that punishment had on the population. It was based on revelation. That’s not something that is going to change with the times.

‘the Church in her theory and practice has maintained retributive as well as medicinal penalties’ and that ‘this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the above-mentioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time, and that a general and abiding validity cannot therefore be attributed to them. (Pius XII)

 

[PetraG]

No, moral law was not based on reasonable conclusions about what effect this or that punishment had on the population. It was based on revelation. That’s not something that is going to change with the times.

‘the Church in her theory and practice has maintained retributive as well as medicinal penalties’ and that ‘this is more in conformity with what the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine teach regarding the coercive power of legitimate human authority. It is not a sufficient reply to this assertion to say that the above-mentioned sources contain only thoughts which correspond to the historic circumstances and to the culture of the time , and that a general and abiding validity cannot therefore be attributed to them. (Pius XII)

No, it doesn’t have to do with the “culture of the time.” It has to do with information available to make decisions–that is good-faith applications of moral law based on what was known at the time about cause and effect, not to mention the actual fairness of courts of law–and alternatives available to protect human life.
Honestly, you sound as if you don’t think contemporary Popes know how to read the encyclicals of their successors.

 

[Ender]

No, it doesn’t have to do with the “culture of the time.” It has to do with information available to make decisions–that is good-faith applications of moral law based on what was known at the time about cause and effect, not to mention the actual fairness of courts of law…

If all we’re talking about here are different perceptions of how the moral law ought to be applied then we’re clearly not debating doctrine, and there is no question of assent.

…and alternatives available to protect human life.

What is the significance of this point given that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment? Protection, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all valid objectives, but they are all secondary, and all three together do not determine what punishment is appropriate.

 

[Genesis315]

What does one make of the following from one Pius XII’s addresses on the topic.

After describing the modern approach which justifies punishment “in the last resort as a protective measure, that is, a defense of the community against crimes being attempted, and at the same time, as an effort to lead the culprit back to observance of the law” he notes:

It may be permitted to a theory, to a juridical school, to national or international penal legislation to define philosophically punishment in the way in which they understand it, in conformity with their juridical system, provided that they respect the considerations developed above concerning the nature of man and the’ essence of guilt [earlier in the address he addresses man’s free will, conscience, and moral responsibility and the proper determination of guilt based on that].

After a discussion of the other “point of view, indeed a higher one” that is a redress against injustice and expiation, he concludes:

Whether or not, as We have said, one leaves to theory and practice the duty of defining the role of punishment in the narrower modern sense, or in the other broader one, it is possible for collaboration in either case, and one can look forward to the creation of an international penal code. But do not refuse to consider this ultimate reason for punishment, merely because it does not seem likely to produce immediate practical results.

It seems he is saying the narrower understanding is permissible to apply in practice (even if the other should not be discounted out of hand), and if we take the new CCC paragraph’s reference to a change in the understanding of punishment as referring de facto to most societies in general, it seems it can be read as an application of the narrower definition “in practice” leaving the broader view still in 2266 to “theory.” (similar approaches have been taken by the Church in other areas, including appeals to the preferred “practice” being more in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel).

Of course, the quote from Pope Francis himself (and especially the address it is taken from) are still problematic for their absolutist language.

 

[Tbrightson]

I think Pius XII had it right.

 

[Ender]

What does one make of the following from one Pius XII’s addresses on the topic.

I think the critical point he made was this: “Most modern theories of penal law explain punishment and justify it in the last resort as a protective measure…” He then goes on to reject this perspective: “The protection of the community against crimes and criminals must be ensured, but the final purpose of punishment must be sought on a higher plane.”

It is expiation - retribution: …“they fail to consider expiation of the crime committed, which itself is a sanction on the violation of the law, as the most important function of the punishment.”

Clearly, the real purpose of punishment is not protection.

Finally, it is only the expiatory function which gives the key to the last judgment of the Creator Himself…the supreme Judge, in His last judgment, applies uniquely the principle of retribution. This, then, must be of great importance.

It is the concept of retribution that has so far been completely absent from this discussion.

 

[Genesis315]

Right, but it seems he considers it permissible for the other view to govern a juridical system in practice and, apparently, even in theory.

 

[Ender]

In practice, perhaps, but there are limits to what a theory may allow:

“…do not refuse to consider this ultimate reason for punishment”