Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[Ender]

Argue all you want. Whatever good arguing against a standing order may or may not accomplish, it certainly casts doubt and provides cover for those who wish to ignore the standing order.

I am arguing for understanding. You are lobbying for the acceptance of an interpretation without understanding whether or not it is accurate.

 

[christofirst]

The way you write and argue, I feel like you’re more intelligent than me. It must be a very fine point which causes such misunderstanding in what is for me a very plain teaching and directive:

“Consequently the church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and she works for it’s abolition worldwide.”

As with most Church teaching, nowhere do I see the exemption, “but only if this makes sense to you.”

 

[Ender]

The way you write and argue, I feel like you’re more intelligent than me.

I think any difference between us is mostly that I have gotten seriously interested in this issue and have spent the last decade or so investigating it to see what the church has written. That is, most of my interest has been in searching what was written prior to the latest version of the catechism.

“Consequently the church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and she works for it’s abolition worldwide.”

This is no doubt on its face a plain teaching, or it would be plain if there was no historical position with which it had to be reconciled. That’s the difficulty; that’s where things become distinctly unclear. Is it reasonable to accept a position today that directly contradicts what was taught as doctrine for two millennia?

@TMC contends that this is not a reversal of doctrine because the “root of this topic” (though shalt not kill?) is unchanged, but this just rationalizes away the problem. Here is the doctrine:

3 Q. Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?
A. “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 St Pius X)

So, if the lawfulness of capital punishment can simply be reversed, why not the teachings on just war and self defense as well? What safeguards those teachings? We really need to understand the implications of a statement as well as its “plain” meaning, which in this case turns out not to be at all as plain as it appears.

 

[christofirst]

All of that history is addressed in the full statement of Pope Francis when he declared the death penalty inadmissible (not permitted, no longer tolerated). Unfortunately, I’m writing and posting from my phone now, which limits my ability repost that teaching, being as I’m old and technologically behind the times.

 

[christofirst]

Is it really God, or perhaps a more primitive understanding of God, based on our own desire to justify retributive justice?

 

[NSmith]

I think that it is more difficult to deal with the long-standing support and Church Father endorsement of the death penalty than God’s direct actions in the OT. Certainly God can do what he wills, and we know that he punishes sin with death. The question is whether or not he permits the state also to exercise the same authority for such offenses that threaten the common good.
On that end I don’t think the OT law is very relevant, since the Mosaic law was an imperfect expression or the moral law, and did not have the respect for the dignity of life that Christ would later display. It also permitted divorce, for example. It is very easy to reconcile OT law condoning slavery and divorce with the Christian teachings, because in Christ we have the perfect expression of the imperfect.

As for the church’s tradition, I think it is fair to say that Pope Francis at least considers that the magisterium did not make any irreformable definition of the death penalty. The fact that he also refrained from providing such a definition however implies to me that he prefers to allow the sensus fidelium to grow alongside his current teaching. I expect that we will see some clarification on this point eventually. In the mean time it is important to recognize Pope Francis’ valid authority and competence to make the judgement he made, while also recognizing that there is a long-standing tradition in the church that is just as valid and just as competent.

It would be a mistake to assume that popes in the past were limited in their understanding of the Gospel and thus ruled erroneously on the death penalty. It would also be a mistake to assume that Pope Francis was not aware of the situation when he determined what he has determined, and for that reason I think he was careful to only speak of the “new” and the “present” rather than explaining anything about the past.

 

[Ender]

All of that history is addressed in the full statement of Pope Francis when he declared the death penalty inadmissible (not permitted, no longer tolerated).

Regrettably Pope Francis called it “inadmissible”, which even the US bishops found ambiguous ("an eloquent ambiguity"), and it is ambiguous precisely because it doesn’t resolve the question of whether it is or is not it is understood to be intrinsically evil. If it means “no longer tolerated” then that suggests prudential judgment, which is easily reconciled with all of church history. If it is understood as new doctrine, however, the opposite is true, and this is the source of all the difficulties.

 

[christofirst]

Our Lord also said that Moses permitted divorce, which I’m hoping Moses also understood as coming from God and not just his own preference, but that this allowance has now changed. Did God change? No. It follows, however, that Pope Francis, the Vicar of Christ, could also change the death penalty from allowable to inadmissible.

 

[Bernoulli]

Whether or not it is easy to deal with this change of the Catechism depends on what one is doing. For many people, it does not impact their everyday life, they don’t think about history and maybe it corresponds to their personal point of view, so there is no issue at all.
On the other hand, if one is involved with evangelism and has to answer questions from non-Catholics, this change has been very difficult, even if it doesn’t endanger their own faith. You cannot just tell people to trust the Magesterium, if the very credibility of the office is in question and has to be defended.

 

[christofirst]

Okay, how about the dietary laws? That changed too. My point is that what we consider as being required or allowed by God can change, and it doesn’t mean God has changed.

 

[christofirst]

My understanding is that Pope Francis is telling us that the State’s authority to have recourse to the death penalty no longer applies, due to our better understanding of human dignity and improved ways of safeguarding society without capital punishment. And more than no longer applying, the church wants the death penalty abolished. Why cling so tenaciously to it?

 

[Ender]

I think that it is more difficult to deal with the long-standing support and Church Father endorsement of the death penalty than God’s direct actions in the OT. Certainly God can do what he wills, and we know that he punishes sin with death.

I think the Islamic understanding is that Allah is not bound by anything, and may do whatever he wills, but we believe otherwise in that we believe morality does not change and God cannot (or at least would not) do something that was immoral. So…if God punishes with death how do we conclude that this is immoral?

The question is whether or not he permits the state also to exercise the same authority for such offenses that threaten the common good.

This is the ripple effect of chasing questionable theory. The church has addressed this; are we to assume that this too has been abrogated? If the magistrate lacks the authority to impose capital punishment we are left with the conclusion that the church taught error for 2000 years, that the Fathers and Doctors were wrong, and that their understanding of Scripture was severely flawed.

On that end I don’t think the OT law is very relevant, since the Mosaic law was an imperfect expression or the moral law, and did not have the respect for the dignity of life that Christ would later display.

Even if we discard all of Mosaic law that still does not resolve the issue that God commanded Moses to impose capital punishment. This seems to present the problem where we must believe either that morality can change (contra church doctrine), that God did something immoral (an impossibility), or that the death penalty is not immoral.

Besides this, the command that murderers be punished with death is part of God’s covenant with Noah (Gn 9:5-6) and will be valid until the end of time.

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)

In the mean time it is important to recognize Pope Francis’ valid authority and competence to make the judgement he made…

It is certainly within his authority to make judgments, and I understand this teaching in that light: a judgment.

 

[Rau]

Rau:

That’s not quite what I suggested, but I’ll overlook that. Because your statement here is just too fascinating. So here we have - in your view - a moral truth about CP that has a starting time point in the 21st century , and will endure forever. Now THAT is a truly remarkable theological development!

Of course, that is not at all what I said.

I believe it is reflects exactly what you said. You explain you need to express it this way to avoid accepting that previously the church must have taught error. You wrote:

I am not trying to project that teaching back into history to condemn past Church leaders, and neither is the Church. It applies now, and going forward.

 

[Rau]

for me a very plain teaching and directive:

“Consequently the church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and she works for it’s abolition worldwide.”

Yes, the directive is plain and simple. Do you not feel unsettled that if interpreted as a statement of eternal moral truth, it contradicts the plain and simple of the prior 2000 years? Does that not suggest it can only be interpreted as a statement about what’s best in the current age?

 

[christofirst]

You lost me right there. I believe Pope Francis has that authority. What I can’t believe is that the Pope known for promoting collegiality would go rogue and promulgate such an important teaching without consulting many canon lawyers and trusted experts. I’m certain he weighed the legitimacy of this action very carefully before presenting it to us as Church teaching.

 

[Rau]

All of that history is addressed in the full statement of Pope Francis when he declared the death penalty inadmissible (not permitted, no longer tolerated).

How can he address it but to abrogate it? What could he do but say (in less direct language) - “what we said then was not right. now we have it right”.

 

[christofirst]

Unless someone beats me to it, I’ll have to post the passage I’m thinking of when I get home to my computer.

For my purposes in this thread, it doesn’t matter so much to me if this is a teaching that has evolved over time, so to speak. The fact is, this is the teaching now, and I’m okay with that.

 

[Rau]

My understanding is that Pope Francis is telling us that the State’s authority to have recourse to the death penalty no longer applies, due to our better understanding of human dignity

This part says we got it wrong in the past and CP was never justifiable.

and improved ways of safeguarding society without capital punishment.

This part is a judgement about present circumstances and says CP can’t be justified “now”. This part is not troublesome but it is a prudential judgement.

the church wants the death penalty abolished. Why cling so tenaciously to it?

This part causes no difficulty. I support that want too. But on this I am sharing a judgement about what is best for the world in our modern times. But to abolish CP can’t be doctrinal.

For my purposes in this thread, it doesn’t matter so much to me if this is a teaching that has evolved over time, so to speak.

Teachings don’t normally evolve so much that they contradict what came before.

The fact is, this is the teaching now, and I’m okay with that.

That the contradictions that arise if Francis 1 is proclaiming doctrine don’t concern you is an honest position. More honest than those who want to say it is doctrinal and there is no contradiction.

 

[TMC]

I believe it is reflects exactly what you said. You explain you need to express it this way to avoid accepting that previously the church must have taught error.

No, you are simply not understanding what I am saying. I have avoided dragging in other changes to Church teaching to avoid thread drift, but it is like other changes wherein the Church keeps the core moral teaching intact, but there is a development in how that teaching applies to certain situations. At first blush, its looks like a 180 change, but in reality it is a development of existing doctrine. The same thing has happened here. Just as has happened in the past, some Catholics reject those changes for various reasons. Just as has happened in the past, the time will come when everyone (or nearly everyone) understands the development.

 

[christofirst]

Your argument over the historical significance of this teaching that the death penalty is now inadmissible is with someone else, I think, and not me.

It occurs to me though, for those who think Pope Francis had no authority to do this, wouldn’t Pope Emeritus Benedict feel somehow duty bound to correct him, if what he did was such a travesty? I mean I know he doesn’t want to get involved anymore, but if this is somehow tearing apart the Church and making people question papal authority, he might have said something for the good of the Church. Yet to my knowledge he did not.