Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alainval
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have avoided dragging in other changes to Church teaching to avoid thread drift,
Sorry, that was me who did that. I find your reasoning and arguments to be quite convincing, and therefore should probably just leave it to you. I certainly don’t have the problem following your explanations that others seem to have.
 
Last edited:
No, you are simply not understanding what I am saying.
That seems to be the principal rebuttal you adopt. It’s wearing thin.
the Church keeps the core moral teaching intact, but there is a development in how that teaching applies to certain situations.
The core used to be that CP was among a small number of acts causing death that did not necessarily fall foul of the 5th commandment.
At first blush, its looks like a 180 change, but in reality it is a development of existing doctrine.
The doctrine at issue pertains to CP and whether it can be a good act (in right circumstances). The answer used to be Yes.
 
The doctrine at issue pertains to CP and whether it can be a good act (in right circumstances). The answer used to be Yes.
The answer used to be yes. The answer is now no. Just as the answers to other questions have similarly changed. The underlying teaching that unjustified killing is inherently immoral has not changed. The scope of what may be justified has changed.
 
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.
What an odd statement! This is a forum. I responded to your post.
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.
Benedict is not the Pope. I conclude nothing from observation that he’s not involved.
 
40.png
Rau:
The doctrine at issue pertains to CP and whether it can be a good act (in right circumstances). The answer used to be Yes.
The answer used to be yes. The answer is now no.
I appreciate that’s your understanding of what Francis 1 has said. It follows that the Church must have erred for 2000 years.
The underlying teaching that unjustified killing is inherently immoral has not changed.
That’s a meaningless statement. Clearly what is not justified is not good.
The scope of what may be justified has changed.
Therefore doctrine has changed (reversed on the question of whether CP is ever justifiable).

If a pope in 10 years’ time develops doctrine to identify times when CP is acceptable, I assume you will be ok with that too? And if a Pope in 20 years’ time determines that abortion within 36 hours of conception is ok (due to better understanding of something), will you be ok with that?
 
If a pope in 10 years’ time develops doctrine to identify times when CP is acceptable, I assume you will be ok with that too? And if a Pope in 20 years’ time determines that abortion within 36 hours of conception is ok (due to better understanding of something), will you be ok with that?
I am not (and have not) passed any judgment on this teaching, so it makes no sense to ask whether I would be “OK” with future teachings (and no one should care if I am). Lots of other posters have expressed their judgment as to what the scope of the Pope’s authority is (most putting their judgment above his) and also what the Church may and may not teach - but not I. I understand I am not the one with the authority to say what the Church teaches. I am merely trying to explain what the Church is teaching, and also to explain how this teaching is a development of existing teaching. It is others that are passing judgment and claiming the authority to cabin the scope of the Church’s teaching.
 
And this is the real problem: how do we condemn today what was clear and unambiguous doctrine for 2000 years?
You’re just expressing your interpretation of what ‘doctrine’ has been for 2000 years. Others of us who accept the Church teaching clearly and unambiguously recognize that the death penalty was always conditional upon the common good and human good. We recognize that the Popes haven’t been creating a new teaching, but addressing what has become nearly heretical belief that it has always been an unconditional right.
 
Last edited:
If a pope in 10 years’ time develops doctrine to identify times when CP is acceptable, I assume you will be ok with that too? And if a Pope in 20 years’ time determines that abortion within 36 hours of conception is ok (due to better understanding of something), will you be ok with that?
Popes have never made civil laws. They address them in the light of Christ. It’s possible in some post apocolyptic world or some such event, that the death penalty might be needed. That’s not a popes call though. They’ll address any false claims that are impacting on the governments authority though.
 
What an odd statement! This is a forum. I responded to your post.
The Church teaches that the use of the death penalty is no longer allowed. You accept that this is how it is now, right? Others here can’t seem to accept it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are discussing the finer points of the teaching, the significance of the teaching, without actually denying the present teaching. This is why I said your argument about history was with someone else. We both seem to agree that this is how it is now, and that’s good enough for me. Unless I’m completely misunderstanding you… Are you also saying that a Catholic can still continue to support the death penalty, even after Pope Francis declared it inadmissible?
 
Last edited:
I’m really not sure why people cling to the absolute admissibility of the death penalty like a warm blanket.
I reckon it’s actually an attempt to cling to the Church and not be shaken from her.

Since if we believed the Church could teach (with binding authority) ‘A’ on Wednesday and ‘Not A’ on Thursday, we’d have to disbelieve the Church has any teaching authority at all. The Church as an institution protected by God would be disproven. We would have to cease to be Catholic (unless, you know, we’re only in it for the smells and bells, not caring about Truth).

So attempts to find ways to reconcile the traditional authoritative teaching with the new catechism entry (especially considering the catechism isn’t a source of authority; it’s a compendium that points to the actual authoritative sources, so you have to actually read those sources to evaluate and interpret what the catechism so briefly says – the catechism is a quick reference starting place, not an ending place) are an attempt to remain Catholic.

It’s certainly what I have to presume, to remain Catholic. That the new catechism entry must be in some way erroneous and requiring further clarification and interpretation to reconcile and remain consistent with previous authoritative teaching.

Because if I took the new catechism entry at face value? No. Catholicism would be disproven and I’d presumably be gone.

So it has nothing to do with wanting the state to execute people. It has to do with defending the coherence and reliability of the Church as our God-given source of authority. The ‘topic’ in question (death penalty) is mere happenstance.
 
Last edited:
So attempts to find ways to reconcile the traditional authoritative teaching with the new catechism entry (especially considering the catechism isn’t a source of authority; it’s a compendium that points to the actual authoritative sources, so you have to actually read those sources to evaluate and interpret what the catechism so briefly says – the catechism is a quick reference starting place, not an ending place) are an attempt to remain Catholic.
Don’t they believe that the living Magisterium is the authoritative source of Apostolic Tradition? I have very little knowledge about the theological processes and vast knowledge of the Church in order to claim that something is a continuum or not. But what I do believe is that the Church does have 2000 years of history and theology in her hands to teach. I can’t imagine taking a position in opposition to the Church on anything in the belief that I know better than them.
 
Last edited:
I can’t imagine taking a position in opposition to the Church on anything in the belief that I know better than them.
Exactly.

Which is why we cannot take the position that the death penalty is inherently morally evil across circumstances.

This would place us in opposition to the Church Herself, who authoritatively taught the contrary throughout Her history.

The living magisterium is tasked with preserving Tradition. They have authority only within their designated parameters.

There can be authentic development in understanding – but never a change of a type so fundamental that it objectively contradicts what came before.

The Church’s previous authoritative position positively required Catholics to believe that the death penalty may be legitimately applied under some circumstances. No Church official has the authority to now contradict that.

If they do, it disproves the Church.

So whatever’s happened, we must interpret it as not actually contradicting what came before. Or we must accept the Church as disproven.

No current pope can have valid authority if any previous pope didn’t. We cannot jettison the Church-yesterday for some new Church-today. There is only one Church. Not just across the globe but across the years. She can grow from a seed into a tree – but not into a camel.
 
Last edited:
The living magisterium doesn’t exist to change teachings, it exists to make sure the truths get passed on from age to age 🙂
If it doesn’t follow what the apostles taught, it is dubious.
[/quote]

The Apostles never addressed the death penalty and neither did Jesus. The Church has addressed it only in relation to opposition to it that claims that it is effectively murder and today opposition to abolition falsely claiming that it can never be morally wrong in any circumstance.
 
40.png
Motherwit:
I can’t imagine taking a position in opposition to the Church on anything in the belief that I know better than them.
Exactly.

Which is why we cannot take the position that the death penalty is inherently morally evil across circumstances.
But we can claim that it is morally evil now because the Church says abolition is the result of “heightened moral awareness”.
 
But we can claim that it is morally evil now because the Church says abolition is the result of “heightened moral awareness”.
This (sloppy wording suggesting “heightened moral awareness” can occur that justifies completely contradicting previous authoritative Church teaching) is the exact reason we must patiently await a more clarifying re-wording of the catechism entry.

Because obviously with the wording as-is, it suggests a previous moral deficiency sufficient to disprove the Church and justify leaving her.

No actual authoritative Church document supports this catechism wording (“inadmissible” doesn’t even mean anything precisely defined), so we may continue to await the correction to the wording that will eliminate this new confusion.
 
Last edited:
You’re just expressing your interpretation of what ‘doctrine’ has been for 2000 years.
More than that - he has demonstrated it with numerous citations on this and other threads.
Others of us who accept the Church teaching clearly and unambiguously recognize that the death penalty was always conditional upon the common good and human good.
No argument that acts of CP are only justified in proper circumstances. And if the one asserts current circumstances don’t justify it, that’s fine. It’s a prudential judgement. But if he means to say it can never be justified, that contradicts doctrine.
We recognize that the Popes haven’t been creating a new teaching, but addressing what has become nearly heretical belief that it has always been an unconditional right.
Noone claims CP for stealing a loaf of bread is justified.
 
Last edited:
Popes have never made civil laws. They address them in the light of Christ. It’s possible in some post apocolyptic world or some such event, that the death penalty might be needed. That’s not a popes call though. They’ll address any false claims that are impacting on the governments authority though.
That’s fine. It’s consistent with interpreting the CP position of Francis 1 as a prudential judgement - a statement about what is good in current circumstances.
 
I am not (and have not) passed any judgment on this teaching, so it makes no sense to ask whether I would be “OK” with future teachings (and no one should care if I am).
Of course you have. You’ve embraced it as doctrinal change (a reversal in fact). Thus I conclude a further reversal on this or another doctrinal matter is ok with you so long as expressed by the Pope of the day.

This is why the statement of Francis 1 needs to be understood as pertaining to the times. And this makes it a “prudential judgement”.
Are you also saying that a Catholic can still continue to support the death penalty, even after Pope Francis declared it inadmissible?
It is not required to concur with the pope on a matter of Prudential judgement. If I recall, Pope Benedict said exactly that when JP 2 revised the CP coverage in the catechism.
 
Last edited:
From an article published in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review:

“In any case, however we understand the motivations and causes behind the revised text, it is clear that the text itself does not necessarily teach or imply anything new concerning the intrinsic morality of the death penalty considered apart from contingent circumstances presumed to exist in parts of the modern world.”

Source
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top