Can a Catholic Still Maintain the Death Penalty?

[TMC]

Death penalty has always been permissible and still is and always will be. Whatever change you speak of is null.

I believe you are speaking of a comment Pope Francis made on the death penalty. That is the Pope’s opinion, it is not infallible nor did it change the teaching. It cannot change, even the Pope wanted to change it.

This is simply incorrect. Have you followed the thread? It is not referring to a comment or opinion of the Pope. It is a formal change to the Catechism. The Church teaches that the penalty is not permissible.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I accept the Church’s prudential judgment that the death penalty is inadmissible in today’s world. If the world would ever change radically — if, for instance, there would be some horrible disaster that would bludgeon the surviving peoples and nations into medieval times, and take away our ability to secure and (attempt to) rehabilitate capital criminals — then it might be once again admissible. For me to dismiss the Church’s prudential judgment (not doctrine, not dogma, just a sober assessment of the world as it now exists) would mean that I were placing my view of the world above that of the Pope and the magisterium. That would take awfully big shoes.

In our country — let’s just be honest — the death penalty exists largely to satisfy the indignation, and desire for justice (or revenge? — there’s a thin line separating the two) among the people, especially among the less-educated and less-refined. Just look at the crowds that gather outside the prisons before an execution, and how they celebrate and cheer when it takes place. I wouldn’t be surprised if vendors were selling T-shirts, bobbleheads, and deep-fried-whatever! It doesn’t exactly bring out the best or the noblest in people.

 

[NSmith]

I think Tim Staples did a really good job on this question here:

Pope Francis and the Death Penalty - TimStaples.com

On August 1, Pope Francis approved a change to one paragraph in the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2267) dealing with the death penalty and he instructed the Prefect of the CDF (The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), Luis Cardinal Ladaria, to promulgate this revision...

timstaples.com

 

[c4csp]

This is simply incorrect. Have you followed the thread? It is not referring to a comment or opinion of the Pope. It is a formal change to the Catechism. The Church teaches that the penalty is not permissible.

The church has always taught that death penalty was permissible, so it cannot change 2,000 years later. Was there a change to Catechism? I have no idea. I use Catechism of Trent and Baltimore catechism. However, the teaching does not change nor can it change.

 

[NSmith]

However, the teaching does not change nor can it change.

You are correct that it cannot suddenly be determined that the death penalty is evil in itself and therefore never permissible under any circumstance. What has changed is that the Church now advises nations of the modern time that the death penalty is presently inadmissible due to considerations for alternative means by which they can accomplish their duties, which chiefly pertain to the protection of the innocent.
This prudential teaching deserves due consideration because of the seriousness of the matter and the authority of the teacher. Many in this thread misinterpret the change to mean precisely what it doesn’t mean, to wit, that the death penalty is per se a moral wrong, and thus they have set Tradition at odds with itself, which is of course impossible.

 

[NSmith]

I think it is a fair point to say that national authorities are better situation to determine the necessity of capital punishment than the Pope. For example, a developing nation with fewer resources might not be as capable of indefinitely detaining a violent criminal, and in this case it would be problematic for them to put at risk their own citizens in order to avoid the death penalty.
However, the Pope likely also considered this, and felt comfortable revising the catechism in any case. Clearly he believes that every nation of today, no matter their wealth or resources, has at the very least the ability to avoid the death penalty.
Admitting that there is any scenario at all where capital punishment is permissible does not necessarily mean that anyone is elevating themselves over against the Pope. In the words of the catechism, “Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.” Here it is admitted that the death penalty was “long considered” to be acceptable. If it was evil intrinsically, then it could never have been acceptable.
I think the people that have misread the catechism know who they are, I don’t want to name them.

 

[JimG]

I don’t have a problem with the Church opposing the use of capital punishment. I do have a problem with the Church changing its doctrine.

But I don’t think that’s what happened here. Saying that current conditions in developed nations make the death penalty inadmissible does not seem a change of doctrine, but a judgment about current conditions in the world.

If the death penalty was inadmissible for all of history, then the Church was wrong in the past.

 

[NSmith]

You’ve stated exactly why its important to be precise when speaking about the revision. It clearly does not constitute an about face on the doctrine, but it is the informed judgement of the current pontificate that the death penalty is inadmissible under the current conditions.

 

[Anesti33]

I don’t have a problem with the Church opposing the use of capital punishment. I do have a problem with the Church changing its doctrine.

But I don’t think that’s what happened here. Saying that current conditions in developed nations make the death penalty inadmissible does not seem a change of doctrine, but a judgment about current conditions in the world.

If the death penalty was inadmissible for all of history, then the Church was wrong in the past.

I think that’s still an astounding occurrence, though. The Church has always maintained that faith and morals are eternal truths, and do not change based on the time or place. It is astounding to say that the world is in a situation where something once morally permissible is “inadmissible”, because the world will never be in a state where abortion is permissible, or stealing is allowed.

 

[JimG]

To be honest, I don’t think I have ever seen the term “inadmissible” used as a term of moral theology. So I’m not entirely clear on what it means.

 

[Canvas]

I’ve never had a problem with accepting it. I actually reached the conclusion that the death penalty under the US legal system was unworkable, useless, prone to error (we’ve probably already executed some innocent people),

^ 100% agree. I was against the death penalty before 2018. I see no reason to kill a human unless there is no other option to protect yourself and/or others, plus all of the added problems (like the fact that in the last 20-25 years, DNA and scientific advancements have raised at least some doubts as to the guilt of many people convicted of capital crimes).

 

[Motherwit]

JimG:

I don’t have a problem with the Church opposing the use of capital punishment. I do have a problem with the Church changing its doctrine.

But I don’t think that’s what happened here. Saying that current conditions in developed nations make the death penalty inadmissible does not seem a change of doctrine, but a judgment about current conditions in the world.

If the death penalty was inadmissible for all of history, then the Church was wrong in the past.

I think that’s still an astounding occurrence, though. The Church has always maintained that faith and morals are eternal truths, and do not change based on the time or place. It is astounding to say that the world is in a situation where something once morally permissible is “inadmissible”, because the world will never be in a state where abortion is permissible, or stealing is allowed.

This is how I understand it. In the past when the Church has spoken on the death penalty it was to correct the faulty belief that it was always evil to kill someone even as a punishment. Some of the Saints even thought that . Today the Church has to address the death penalty in the face of the opposite faulty belief that the death penalty is a right and is always legitimate regardless of the conditions in which it’s practiced. All the time though the Church has recognized that the death penalty must serve the common good to be legitimate.

 

[NSmith]

I understand the use of the term inadmissible to be different from permissible in that context, because you are right in saying that we don’t believe in situational ethics. The catechism is confirming what has always been true, that is to say that the only legitimate killing of mankind is dependent on right circumstance and intention.
The intention of capital punishment must be to safeguard the innocent, and the circumstances wherein it is permissible is if there is no other reasonable alternative that also safeguards the populace. Pope Francis believes with confidence that there are always alternatives, and thus he says “inadmissible” but he does not say it is not permissible, on the contrary, as I stated above:

“Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.” Here it is admitted that the death penalty was “long considered” to be acceptable. If it was evil intrinsically, then it could never have been acceptable.

 

[kapp19]

Anyone who wants to get into this topic - or opine on it - really needs to study the case that this is irreformable doctrine.

Dr. Feser’s book (and various articles, responding to critiques) on the topic is indispensable. Every objection - yes, even whatever objection you’ve got - is addressed therein.

It seems absurd that suddenly a magic formula laterally develops a doctrine which was self-evident from Tradition until a few years ago… You can use the same paragraphs in the CCC to change basically anything you want, if this is a legitimate “development.”

 

[Rau]

I realize that you are trying to be cute and snarky, but I don’t think it is a cute topic.

Perhaps we can simply agree that we should all support a moral response to crime and not support an immoral and unjustified practice, like state-enforced killing of those the state deems unworthy of continuing to live?

I’m not a fan of capital punishment. And I’m not trying to be cute or snarky either. My post was to highlight the consequences of your interpretation of the recent wording in the CCC pertaining to CP. Now if those consequences are unacceptable to you - you should be questioning the interpretation you’ve expressed.

 

[Rau]

How can you deny the plain words of the Catechism,

They are not so plain. The “inadmissibility” is a reflection on the acceptability of CP today. It cannot be an absolute statement of CP as always and everywhere evil because for 2000 years the reverse was taught explicitly!

 

[Rau]

From the Tim Staples article:

” The truth is: Pope Francis did not say “the death penalty is intrinsically evil,” i.e., that it has always been and always will be unjust in any and every situation . That would be contrary to both Scripture and Tradition. This error is rooted in a false understanding of what Pope Francis meant when he declared the death penalty in our day and age to represent “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”. “

I think that’s still an astounding occurrence, though. The Church has always maintained that faith and morals are eternal truths, and do not change based on the time or place. It is astounding to say that the world is in a situation where something once morally permissible is “inadmissible”, because the world will never be in a state where abortion is permissible, or stealing is allowed

Not astounding at all. An act can be good in one context and evil in another. In self defense for example, it is wrong to use more force than judged necessary (by the one acting).

An act of CP can be wrong when utterly unwarranted. Should we punish the theft of a loaf of bread with death? But because CP is not intrinsically evil, there can be situations where it is a good act. Abortion however is intrinsically evil, therefore no such situation exists. By definition it is always wrong to choose.

To be honest, I don’t think I have ever seen the term “inadmissible” used as a term of moral theology. So I’m not entirely clear on what it means.

I suggest it is akin to describing CP these days as “unthinkable”.

 

[signit]

Me neither. I would hope that it’s not because they like the idea of executing people.
In some cases they may think society is not truly safe as long as these “worst offenders” are alive and could commit bad deeds again.

My belief exactly.

I do not relish the idea of someone being executed. I still believe in the sanctity of life, as all Catholics do.

The sole reason why I support the state’s option to use the death penalty in some circumstances is (as I said earlier) the risk to public safety if the person were set free to kill again.

 

[TMC]

The church has always taught that death penalty was permissible, so it cannot change 2,000 years later. Was there a change to Catechism? I have no idea. I use Catechism of Trent and Baltimore catechism. However, the teaching does not change nor can it change.

LOL, seriously?? You have no idea what the Catechism says, but you know better than the Pope how to apply the deposit of faith? You might want to recheck your sources, and look into the history of the evolution of Church teaching.

 

[TMC]

I’m not a fan of capital punishment. And I’m not trying to be cute or snarky either. My post was to highlight the consequences of your interpretation of the recent wording in the CCC pertaining to CP. Now if those consequences are unacceptable to you - you should be questioning the interpretation you’ve expressed.

I am not expressing an interpretation. I am just posting the actual words of the Catechism.

I am not sure what you mean by “consequences.” You asked if the Church has apologized. Not my decision. Certainly the Church has apologized for other things. But the perception that the Church may be embarrassed or regretful about the past should surely not keep the Church from teaching the truth today.