Can the Death Penalty save souls?

[Indifferently]

Hi Gary

Please tell me why the death penalty is wrong under the New Covenant then. I am pretty sure Jesus would have mentioned it, since it was very prevalent as punishment st the time of his ministry.

In fact, if Jesus had not himself been subject to the death penalty, he would not have redeemed us and we would still be dead in our sins.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Hi Gary

Please tell me why the death penalty is wrong under the New Covenant then. I am pretty sure Jesus would have mentioned it, since it was very prevalent as punishment st the time of his ministry.

In fact, if Jesus had not himself been subject to the death penalty, he would not have redeemed us and we would still be dead in our sins.

Hi Indifferently: Jesus spoke with action. He stopped a death sentence as it was being carried out in full accord with the law, and whereupon being reminded by the crowd what the law prescribed, He told us that he among us who is without sin should be the first to cast a stone. Unfortunately, His words and actions seem to have been a bit too nuanced for many these days.

 

[GEddie]

Hi Gary

Please tell me why the death penalty is wrong under the New Covenant then. I am pretty sure Jesus would have mentioned it, since it was very prevalent as punishment st the time of his ministry.

In fact, if Jesus had not himself been subject to the death penalty, he would not have redeemed us and we would still be dead in our sins.

He had to die, and presumably by being killed, as a body who is Himself the source of life cannot die naturally.

But I am not sure that that requires that He be subject to a state execution. If He had been slain like Abel, His death would have had equal value.

Correct me if that is wrong; IANAPJAAS.

ICXC NIKA

 

[pnewton]

This is a question we cannot possibly know. Since it is impossible to know whether impending execution is more salvific than time in prison, this cannot logically be used as any death penalty argument. No doubt it will still be used illogically.

 

[aspirant]

Since it is impossible to know whether impending execution is more salvific than time in prison, this cannot logically be used as any death penalty argument.

I agree that the possibility of repentance in the face of execution is no justification for use of the death penalty.

Please tell me why the death penalty is wrong under the New Covenant then.

Jesus clearly teaches that we must love every human person, even our enemies, just as our Father loves every human person, even his enemies (cf. Mt 5:38-48, Rm 5:6-11, etc.). Every human being’s life is a sacred and precious gift from God. To love someone means to will good rather than harm to him or her, and this means we should never directly desire or will anyone’s death, even the death of an enemy, for “God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living,” (Ws 1:13). Love, by its very nature, excludes any will to retaliate or revenge evil: “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good… Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them… Repay no one evil for evil… Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ To the contrary, ‘if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good,” (Rm 12:9-21).

It is for these reasons that the Catholic Church teaches, in the words of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, that “No matter how heinous the crime, if society can protect itself without ending a human life, it should do so.” In the words of Blessed John Paul II, punishment “ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” We Catholics are called by the Gospel of Christ to be unconditionally pro-life.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is remarkably forceful on the point that love prohibits directly dealing death intentionally:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful… The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death… Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.

Even legitimate self-defense is restricted:

“The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… The one is intended, the other is not.”

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: “If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful”…

The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm…

Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm --without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself-- the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

if Jesus had not himself been subject to the death penalty, he would not have redeemed us and we would still be dead in our sins.

Jesus did redeem us through being executed. In fact, he redeemed us through being unjustly executed. The former is no more justification for our executing people unnecessarily than the latter is justification for our judging people unjustly.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think you make a good point pnewton.

Still the focus is on man and his understanding, the Word of God written in the heart be it he is in ignorance or not.

Romans 13:1- Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.

Jesus does answer this also though…

John 19:11 - Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

The Lord works through circumstances. However in the case of the death penalty, man’s intent is in regard for his own good, order and decency in society, this is profitable for them and them alone in that it serves mans will not the Lords.

The argument is one of the same then for the accuser and the accused. Man ignores the Lords Grace, and claims he is not guilty, thus ignorance of providential good. Or “What is Truth” as Pilot stated.

Biblically this also can be witnessed for example in Exodus, Babylon and later of course Rome. Thus free will to the Word written in the heart, an opportunity which offers a cooperative manner by maintaining man’s conscious sense of understanding through basic ‘right and wrong’ behaviors.

Nevertheless in all situations this cooperation of free will towards evil has it limitations as seen above, evil is an effect still traced to a cause, still contingent on God alone as the only uncreated. From what we read and see this is known. God allows this ignorance or intentional transgression to go so far. Being this is His Creation and we are His creatures, and free-will too is a known. As Pilot didn’t know, we still see his conflicted thinking which is offered cooperation through free will.

So then my question, what makes a State who executes any different than Pilot.

 

[Ender]

As for the instances you have cited wherein the death penalty is prescribed, do you find that to be somewhat at odds with the commandment not to kill?

Whatever arguments one can make on other points there is no reasonable interpretation of church teaching that capital punishment is at odds with the fifth commandment. It is in fact the traditional teaching of the church that there are three instances when a life may be legitimately taken: in a just war, in self defense, and via capital punishment.

My sense is that one can torture logic to make any point one likes, but killing a captive person who has no ability to stop you (as is the case with prisoners) is intuitively wrong, regardless of what a person has done, and regardless of one’s religion or lack thereof.

This may be intuitively wrong to you but the Catholic church has never taken this position. In fact, her position was first expressed by Pope St. Innocent I in 405:
“*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God?” *

• *Ender

 

[Ender]

So then my question, what makes a State who executes any different than Pilot.

Pilate’s sin was not that he condemned someone to be executed but that he executed an innocent man. No one is suggesting that the state is justified in executing the innocent.

Ender

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Whatever arguments one can make on other points there is no reasonable interpretation of church teaching that capital punishment is at odds with the fifth commandment. It is in fact the traditional teaching of the church that there are three instances when a life may be legitimately taken: in a just war, in self defense, and via capital punishment.
This may be intuitively wrong to you but the Catholic church has never taken this position. In fact, her position was first expressed by Pope St. Innocent I in 405:
“*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God?” *

• *Ender

The Catholic Bishops of the United States would side with me. Their statement on the matter is that they oppose the death penalty, with the following assertions regarding their stance:

First, “abolition sends a message that we can break the cycle of violence, that we need not take life for life, that we can envisage more humane and more hopeful and effective responses to the growth of violent crime.” The bishops recognize that crime is rooted in the complex reality of contemporary society, including those “social conditions of poverty and injustice which often provide the breeding grounds for serious crime.” More attention should go to correcting the root causes of crime than to enlarging death row.

Second, “abolition of capital punishment is also a manifestation of our belief in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God.” This belief, rooted in Scripture and consistently expressed in the social teach- ings of the Church, applies to all people, including those who have taken life.

Third, “abolition of the death penalty is further testimony to our conviction, a conviction which we share with the Judaic and Islamic traditions, that God is indeed the Lord of life.” And so human life in all its stages is sacred, and human beings are called to care for life, that is, to exercise good stewardship and not absolute control. The bishops recognize that abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty are not the same issue, but they each point to the same fundamental value: safeguarding the sanctity of life.

Fourth, “we believe that abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with the example of Jesus.” In many ways this final point summarizes the other three: the God revealed in the life of Jesus is a God of forgiveness and redemption, of love and compassion—in a word, a God of life. The heart of the bishops’ position on the death penalty, then, is found in the gospel.

So, now that we have examined the stance of the Bishops of the United State,s let us consider the Church’s assertion that ***the Catholic Church *****is in the vanguard of the opposition to capital punishment. ***The *U.S. Catholic bishops urge all Catholics to “join organizations that work to curtail the death penalty…and those that call for its abolition” (Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, U.S. Catholic Conference, 2000).

Pope John Paul II, speaking in St. Louis in 1999 (where he successfully lobbied for clemency for a Missouri Death Row inmate; a similar request in 2001 for clemency for McVeigh was denied by President Bush), called for a “consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” Catholics in Terre Haute have been equally outspoken on the subject. The Sisters of Providence, who led the silent vigil at both executions, have been actively promoting the Moratorium Campaign and the Declaration of Life, a legal document which anyone may sign and which states that, should the signatory be a victim of capital crime, all steps should be taken to ensure that the perpetrator is not executed.

You may stand however you like on the matter of Capital punishment, but I stand firm with the people above whom I have quoted in the conviction that they have spoken with clarity and moral veracity on the issue.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Whatever arguments one can make on other points there is no reasonable interpretation of church teaching that capital punishment is at odds with the fifth commandment. It is in fact the traditional teaching of the church that there are three instances when a life may be legitimately taken: in a just war, in self defense, and via capital punishment.
This may be intuitively wrong to you but the Catholic church has never taken this position. In fact, her position was first expressed by Pope St. Innocent I in 405:
“*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God?” *

• *Ender

I forgot to mention that in a statement against the death penalty and the taking of any life, Pope Francis said that “we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments.” He seems to consider the killing of other people to be against the commandments, as do I, and he seems to see the death penalty as the killing of other people, as do I.

So, it looks like I am standing with the Bishops of the United States, Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis on this one. Where are you standing? Hopefully not in the communion line.

 

[Francoist]

I won’t throw out 2000 years of Church history, and I won’t become a Marcionite heretic by throwing out the Old Testament. The death penalty does not essentially contradict justice.

If someone is found guilty of a capital crime, then he should be given the opportunity for sacramental confession (and conversion if he is not Catholic) and then a quick death. There is no need to fret excessively over it. Innocent or guilty, if he makes a good confession then likely he goes to God. What regret could he have then? All bodies will die. But the soul is that which may live, if it lives in Jesus Christ.

 

[Ender]

The Catholic Bishops of the United States would side with me.

Whatever you think the bishops are saying today cannot change what the church taught for 20 centuries. Your claim that capital punishment is “at odds with the commandment not to kill” is not something the church has ever taught.

The bishops recognize that crime is rooted in the complex reality of contemporary society, including those “social conditions of poverty and injustice which often provide the breeding grounds for serious crime.” More attention should go to correcting the root causes of crime than to enlarging death row.

This is probably as good an example of why the opinions of some bishops in the US cannot be taken as church doctrine as one could find. The church views this differently. In not a few cases such external and internal factors may attenuate, to a greater or lesser degree, the person’s freedom and therefore his responsibility and guilt. But it is a truth of faith, also confirmed by our experience and reason, that the human person is free. This truth cannot be disregarded, in order to place the blame for individuals’ sins on external factors such as structures, systems or other people. Above all, this would be to deny the person’s dignity and freedom, which are manifested–even though in a negative and disastrous way also in this responsibility for sin committed. Hence there is nothing so personal and untransferable in each individual as merit for virtue or responsibility for sin. (JPII, Reconciliatia et Paenitentia, #16)

Second, “abolition of capital punishment is also a manifestation of our belief in the unique worth and dignity of each person from the moment of conception, a creature made in the image and likeness of God.” This belief, rooted in Scripture …

This has to be one of the more ironic perspectives on capital punishment imaginable since the Scripture being referred to here is Gen 9:6 which tells us not simply that man is made in the image of God but rather it is because man was created in God’s image that the life of a murderer is forfeit.

The bishops recognize that abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty are not the same issue, but they each point to the same fundamental value: safeguarding the sanctity of life.

This is just bad theology but is what one would expect when a committee writes something.

Fourth, “we believe that abolition of the death penalty is most consonant with the example of Jesus.”

Do you not recognize that if this statement is true then the church has been right for only 20 years and utterly wrong for 20 centuries?

Pope John Paul II, speaking in St. Louis in 1999 …

I recognize that JPII was personally opposed to the use of capital punishment. I am only concerned with the doctrinal teaching of the church on the matter.

You may stand however you like on the matter of Capital punishment …

You need to recognize that I am standing with virtually every Church Father, Doctor of the Church, and pope who preceded JPII. It is they, not a committee of the USCCB, I am citing.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I forgot to mention that in a statement against the death penalty and the taking of any life, Pope Francis said that “we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments.”

You misunderstand the nature of this comment. The use of capital punishment is not contrary to the fifth commandment.*The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount **obedience **to this Commandment which prohibits murder. *(Catechism of Trent)

He seems to consider the killing of other people to be against the commandments, as do I, and he seems to see the death penalty as the killing of other people, as do I.

The church has always taught - and taught explicitly - that this is not so, and I’m quite sure our new pope is aware of this. Every catechism prior to the 1997 version in fact made this point.

So, it looks like I am standing with the Bishops of the United States, Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis on this one. Where are you standing? Hopefully not in the communion line.

Do you seriously believe that putting a smiley face on a comment like this makes it acceptable? Before making any more missteps like this you might consider the possibility that your understanding of the issue is not nearly as complete as you suppose. Regarding the communion line, I think I’m covered:”if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
Ender

 

[Gabriel_Serafin]

Dear fellow members,

Can the death penalty save souls? Do you not think it possible that someone faced with death as the consequence of a freely chosen act of evil might turn his heart to repentance and beg for God’s mercy? Might it be more likely that the soul of the impenitent sinner would simply rot away if that person was merely thrown into prison for life?

There’s something about knowing one is going to die that has a way of sharpening and focusing the mind on the penalty of one’s crimes and the thought of losing one’s own soul.

Instead of abolishing the death penalty, it may behoove society bring back the threat and swift implementation of the death penalty for violent and especially heinous crimes. There are an average of 600 murders every year in the city of Chicago alone.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Pilate’s sin

Pilots sin was that he played God until the point arrived when he even neglected God in favor of his own will, the all too common error of man thinking he is God, such as this failure called the DP.

Pilot neglected his own conscience for a mob mentality and as stated, only in regard for his own good, order, and what he thought was decency in society, this was profitable for him and him alone in that it served mans will not the Lords. Pilot thought Christ was a misguided individual, the fact Christ was innocent is an “after” thought. Pilot transgressed in his mind before it became a reality and it this case the “consequence” was the death of innocence. Which btw also occurs “today”.

Pilot was so far over the edge of the cliff he needed a GPS to find his way back.

“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.”

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=15

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

You misunderstand the nature of this comment. The use of capital punishment is not contrary to the fifth commandment.*The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount **obedience *to this Commandment which prohibits murder. (Catechism of Trent)
The church has always taught - and taught explicitly - that this is not so, and I’m quite sure our new pope is aware of this. Every catechism prior to the 1997 version in fact made this point.
Do you seriously believe that putting a smiley face on a comment like this makes it acceptable? Before making any more missteps like this you might consider the possibility that your understanding of the issue is not nearly as complete as you suppose. Regarding the communion line, I think I’m covered:”if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.” (Cardinal Ratzinger, 2004)
Ender

You keep quoting how things were, and how the Church was, and how the world was. Making an account of how things used to be on any topic isn’t a convincing argument. Life evolves, and so does our understanding of it. People used to walk on their knuckles, but now we walk upright. Moreover, quoting the Old Testament as a means to justify capital punishment becomes even more peculiar to the modern mind when one considers the transgressions for which capital punishment was prescribed in the Old Testament. For instance, the stoning to death of disobedient children is prescribed in the Old Testament. So, if you are using the Old Testament and tradition as a guide to the use of capital punishment, here is a list of crimes you should be put to death for according to the Old Testament:

Adultery (Lev 20:10-12, (man and woman).

Lying about virginity. Applies to girls who are still in their fathers’ homes, who lie about their virginity, and are presented to their husband as a virgin. The accused is guilty until proved innocent. (Deut 22:20-21).

Making love to a virgin pledged to be married to another. Applies to man who deflowers virgin pledged to be married, and to the virgin if she does not call for help. (Deut 22:23-24).

The daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (death by fire) (Lev 21:9).

Rape of someone who is engaged. If she is not engaged you only have to marry her and give her father 50 shekels. No mention is made of the girl’s opinion. (Deut 22:25).

Men practicing bestiality. (Both man and animal die). (Lev 20:15)

Women practicing bestiality (Both woman and animal die). (Lev 20:16)

Having sex with your father’s wife, as distinct from “your mother”, as it was common practice for men at the time to have several wives. (both die). (Lev 20:20).

Having sex with your daughter in law. (Lev 20:30)
Incest. (Lev 20:17)

Male homosexuality. The girls seem to get a free … errrr …ride on this one. (Lev 20:13).

Marrying a woman and her daughter. They are all burnt to death (Lev 20:14)

Worshiping idols (Ex 22:20, Lev 20:1-5, Deut 17:2-7).

Blasphemy (Lev 24:14-16,23).

Breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:14, Numb 15:32-36).

Practicing magic (Ex 22:18).

Being a medium or spiritualist. (stoning) (Lev 20:27).

Trying to convert people to another religion. (stoning) (Deut 13:1-11, 18:20).

Apostasy - If most people in a town come to believe in a different god. (Kill everybody, including animals, and burn the town.) (Deut 13:12-15)

Giving one of your descents to Molech. Probably refers to human sacrifice and is not now commonly practiced in the west. (Lev 20:2)

Non-priests going near the tabernacle when it is being moved. (Numb 1:51)

Being a false prophet. (Deut 132:5, Deut 18:20, Zech 13:2-3)

Striking your parents (Ex 21:15).

Cursing your parents (Ex 21:17, Lev 20:9).

Being a stubborn and rebellious son. And being a profligate and a drunkard. (stoning) (Quite a few of us might have a problem with this one)(Deut 21:18-21)

Perjury (in certain cases) (Deut 19:15 - 21). Deut 19:20 explicitly identifies that the purpose of this is deterrence. “The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing (malicious and false testimony by one man against another) be done among you.” Presumably all the other death penalties are assumed to be for deterrence as well.
Ignoring the verdict of a judge – (or a priest) (Deut 17:8-13).

Not penning up a known dangerous bull, if the bull subsequently kills a man or a woman. (Ex 21:29) Both the animal and the reckless owner of the dangerous bull are to be put to death.

Living in a city that failed to surrender to the Israelites. (Kill all the men, make the women and children slaves.) Deut 20:12-14.

Sounds like the Old testament might not be such an excellent guide to modern living, nor a beacon of reason on the matter of crime and punishment.

 

[Ender]

You keep quoting how things were, and how the Church was, and how the world was. Making an account of how things used to be on any topic isn’t a convincing argument.

Citing sacred Tradition ought to be be convincing to a Catholic since the church puts it on the same level as Scripture and the teaching of the Magisterium.

Life evolves, and so does our understanding of it.

Life evolves but morality does not. I don’t think you recognize the significance of repudiating two millennia of church teaching, which is what your arguments amount to.

Moreover, quoting the Old Testament as a means to justify capital punishment becomes even more peculiar to the modern mind when one considers the transgressions for which capital punishment was prescribed in the Old Testament.

“I” am not quoting the OT, it is the church that cites that passage. Not only will you find it (and Rom 13:4) referenced continually throughout church history but it is quoted in CCC 2260 with the comment that “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

For instance, the stoning to death of disobedient children is prescribed in the Old Testament.

This probably wasn’t the best example to choose. Here is Christ commenting on that teaching … and he’s not exactly condemning it:*“You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’; but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),’ you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” (Mk 7:8-14)
*

So, if you are using the Old Testament and tradition as a guide to the use of capital punishment, here is a list of crimes you should be put to death for according to the Old Testament:

The passage from Genesis is not part of Mosaic Law, it is part of God’s covenant with Noah and remains part of God’s covenant with man.

Sounds like the Old testament might not be such an excellent guide to modern living, nor a beacon of reason on the matter of crime and punishment.

The church cites this passage even today. Gen 9:6 is the guiding statement on this topic. 2260 The **covenant **between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:
*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. *(Gen 9:5-6)
The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.
Ender

 

[aspirant]

Citing sacred Tradition ought to be be convincing to a Catholic since the church puts it on the same level as Scripture and the teaching of the Magisterium.

It’s plenty convincing to me. Traditionally, the Church has not completely condemned recourse to the death penalty as absolutely immoral for all times and places. That’s still true today. Only the circumstances in which it may be used are significantly more restricted.

What’s not convincing is a presentation of traditional sources that does not admit any subsequent development in doctrinal or moral understanding. A calcified understanding of tradition, regarding tradition as dead and static or even mechanical rather than living and dynamic, would be inconsistent with the teaching of the Church. Tradition is a living transmission entrusted to the Church, and especially entrusted to the interpretive authority of the living teaching office of the Church.

Life evolves but morality does not.

Morality itself does not change (Mt 22:36-40), the Church’s understanding of morality does. The Church’s understanding of divine revelation in Christ Jesus is always growing deeper and fuller, more robust, usually in response to new circumstances, questions, and explorations: “Thanks to the assistance of the Holy Spirit, the understanding of both the realities and the words of the heritage of faith is able to grow in the life of the Church.”
Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.

One example of development in moral doctrine may be found here:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2421 The social doctrine of the Church developed in the nineteenth century when the Gospel encountered modern industrial society with its new structures for the production of consumer goods, its new concept of society, the state and authority, and its new forms of labor and ownership. The development of the doctrine of the Church on economic and social matters attests the permanent value of the Church’s teaching at the same time as it attests the true meaning of her Tradition, always living and active (cf. Centesimus Annus 3).

Catholic Answers has an introductory tract on doctrinal development that’s not too bad, but the subject would be even better served with reference to books such as Yves Congar’s The Meaning of Tradition or Tradition and Traditions and Blessed John Henry Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

 

[Ender]

Traditionally, the Church has not completely condemned recourse to the death penalty as absolutely immoral for all times and places. That’s still true today.

It is true today and will always be true; it is not open to being changed.*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Cardinal Dulles, 2002)

Only the circumstances in which it may be used are significantly more restricted.

What we have in 2267 are prudential arguments against its use. The doctrine is unchanged.

What’s not convincing is a presentation of traditional sources that does not admit any subsequent development in doctrinal or moral understanding.

I recognize that doctrine can develop. What I don’t accept are the arguments used to oppose capital punishment that represent not a development of doctrine but a repudiation of two millennia of teaching.

Ender

 

[aspirant]

The doctrine is unchanged.

Of course the doctrine is unchanged. I just said that. Doctrine does not change, our understanding of it develops.