Capital punishment...again

[Emeraldlady]

As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm, against Justice Scalia, that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning with which Justice Scalia seems not to be familiar. It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.

So from reading Cardinal Dullies response to Justice Scalia’s position (which is basically that capital punishment is intrinsically just and therefore essential for the crime of murder,) the Cardinal is defining the practical application of Church doctrine as a prudential judgement of a Pope. To allow for it’s use or to prohibit it’s use (in all but rare cases), are both ‘prudential judgements’ made according to the concrete circumstances of the times. That definition has been revealed with the passage of time even though it was only implicit to the doctrine in the past.

 

[adgloriam]

As Mr. Akin states in his commentary:

As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.

According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful.

Thank you @Don_Ruggero. Indeed the continued arguing in favor of the death penalty here on CAF does hurt and offend me personally.

This is certainly a great gift from the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Amén.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

it isn’t clear what has developed

In terms of development, the thing that has developed most over the centuries is the Church’s awareness of the dignity of each person regardless of the acts they commit, and the hope of redemption for each person at the hands of God. Given that, it seems fitting that a person’s life should be spared so that God may work in that person.

if it isn’t intrinsically evil then its use is subject to judgment, about which we may legitimately disagree.

I don’t think capital punishment has been labeled as intrinsically evil by Pope Francis. It could certainly be called evil under many circumstances. But capital punishment implies that a prisoner is able to be controlled. And if they can be controlled, there is no reason to kill them in a premeditated fashion. That could be considered evil.

Also, I believe the revision makes allowances for circumstances where holding a prisoner is hazardous to a community, in which case it’s not clear that such a situation qualifies as capital punishment. So the “we” in your quote - “about which we may legitimately disagree” could only refer to a legitimate governing authority, whom would be responsible for judging whether a situation falls under self-defense, just-war, or capital punishment.

Before the revision of the Catechism, capital punishment was supposed to be very rare if used at all. The awareness of the intrinsic dignity of every person can still be found in the CCC before the revision. I don’t see anything but a small step in doctrinal development.

 

[JimG]

From an article on the Catholic Answers website:

“ If the death penalty is not being judged intrinsically evil, what has changed?

It appears that Pope Francis has made a prudential judgment that, given present circumstances in society, there are no longer situations in which the death penalty is warranted.”

Source

To me, the change seems not so much a development of doctrine, as an acknowledgement of changed circumstances to which the doctrine is applied.

 

[exnihilo]

In terms of development, the thing that has developed most over the centuries is the Church’s awareness of the dignity of each person regardless of the acts they commit, and the hope of redemption for each person at the hands of God. Given that, it seems fitting that a person’s life should be spared so that God may work in that person.

When has the Church ever taught that bad acts remove the dignity of a person? Christians were known for tending to the enemy wounded in war because they thought all men had dignity, even their foes. I see the claim made that we are somehow more aware of the dignity of the person but I’ve never seen that argued. I’ve just seen it asserted.

Also, at a certain point it seems to me this makes God into a moral monster. I mean if we can’t kill someone because it deprives them of time then how do we justify God allowing someone to die before he has had a chance to redeem himself?

It appears that Pope Francis has made a prudential judgment that, given present circumstances in society, there are no longer situations in which the death penalty is warranted.”

Then a more thorough explanation of those circumstances and how one reasons through the issue is warranted. Also, the issue of justice needs to be addressed. It is novel to say punishment is only about protecting the innocent.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

When has the Church ever taught that bad acts remove the dignity of a person?

I don’t know if it did.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

To me, the change seems not so much a development of doctrine, as an acknowledgement of changed circumstances to which the doctrine is applied.

The critical point is that this question is now closed by the Magisterium. Whether it “seems” to individuals not to be a development of doctrine is immaterial because the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has decreed that it is a doctrinal development.

As the source that you cite, Mr. Akin, writes:

What level of authority does the new revision have?

According to Cardinal Ladaria:

The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine (7).

As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.

According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful.

 

[Emeraldlady]

When has the Church ever taught that bad acts remove the dignity of a person? Christians were known for tending to the enemy wounded in war because they thought all men had dignity, even their foes. I see the claim made that we are somehow more aware of the dignity of the person but I’ve never seen that argued. I’ve just seen it asserted.

We’ve had to painfully acknowledge that we were wrong to kill non believers in the past. And painfully acknowledge that we were wrong to diminish other cultures and races as intrinsically unChristian. The reason that capital punishment has been denounced in most Christian countries is to do with the prevalence of cultural discrimination against the racial, social and economic marginalized.

 

[otjm]

The prisoners in for life as a whole are not going around committing murder, just as the vast majority of the population in you town (and mine) are not committing murder

.
Your comment is a non sequitur.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Let us go straight to the words of His Eminence, The Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He writes:

The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum , by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church , asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times. [1] This development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life

The Cardinal Prefect, subsequently, goes on to declare in this letter:

In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that “today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been."

The Cardinal Prefect restates the matter:

The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church , approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine.

And again in the following paragraph, the Cardinal Prefect declares:

All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine

Lest there by any confusion about the authority standing behind what the Cardinal writes, he concludes:

The Sovereign Pontiff Francis, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on 28 June 2018, has approved the present Letter, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation on 13 June 2018, and ordered its publication.

Rome, from the Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1 August 2018, Memorial of Saint Alphonsus Liguori .

Thus, the doctrine set forth in the Catechism’s revised text must be given assent – and to withhold assent is to be in dissent from Church teaching on a point of doctrine.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c..._20180801_lettera-vescovi-penadimorte_en.html

 

[Pug]

Yes, it seems both Cardinal Dulles and the Akin article agree on the terminology of “prudential judgement”, though they were written at slightly different moments in the process.

 

[AlNg]

to withhold assent is to be in dissent from Church teaching on a point of doctrine.

Would that be grave matter? Should a person who dissents from Church teaching on this point refrain from presenting himself for Holy communion? Or is it OK to receive Holy Communion while you are in favor of the death penalty under certain conditions?

 

[Sophie111]

given present circumstances in society, there are no longer situations in which the death penalty is warranted.”

I agree with the article but observe for the said prudential judgement to be made … there must be an excepting principle that circumstances can prudentially appeal to.
And this principle must override/modify the alleged command Ender keeps appealing to re the States principled right to punish by killing.

Is it this principle that has changed/evolved (human dignity, commonweal considerations) as well as new concrete times (secure life imprisionment now widely possible).

I believe it is both. The principle that the commonweal good can override the States alleged duty to punish by death (if that death does not itself well serve the commonweal) does have a minority tradition. Now it has become mainstream.
That the commonweal involves recognition and protection of personal dignity…even of killers from death (in modern conditions) … does seem to be a clarification at the level of principle.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Would that be grave matter? Should a person who dissents from Church teaching on this point refrain from presenting himself for Holy communion? Or is it OK to receive Holy Communion while you are in favor of the death penalty under certain conditions?

Personally, as a priest I would say that is a question better posed by the individual concerned in the internal forum.

The response would, properly, ultimately depend upon what was happening in the interior of the person not giving assent. Is the person lacking in knowledge or in catechetical formation in a way that is precluding him or her from giving assent? Is there a misunderstanding on the part of the person? Are they, with good will, seeking to conform themself to what the Church teaches? Or…is the person actually acting out of contempt for ecclesiastical authority or in defiance of the Magisterium? One would hope this latter was not the case. The latter would be more serious, obviously. A confessor is best position to help the person arrive at an informed determination.

One needs also make a distinction between a positive act to refuse assent and being in a state where one is unable to make assent. I am quite sure that there are those in the United States for whom this will be a real journey for them whereas where I am from, capital punishment is behind us, thanks be to God. The difficulty some will experience deserves a compassionate approach.

I think Mr. Akin well formulates a thought that needs be expressed in the context of your question, though…

Of course, having a private disagreement does not entail a right to publicly oppose Church teaching. Fortunately, those experiencing such difficulties can have the consolation that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church “into all the truth” (John 16:13).

A problem would exist if publicly opposing a doctrine of Church teaching.

 

[exnihilo]

I’m not aware of mass killings of unbelievers or saying certain groups are intrinsically un Christian. And the Church certainly never did either. And it never taught that was good. You’ll have to be specific if you are claiming otherwise.

 

[Ender]

As Mr. Akin states in his commentary: " According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful.

This depends on what part of the pope’s statement is doctrinal and what is prudential; that determines the degree of assent required. Mr. Akin seems conflicted on this point because he also said: “It appears that Pope Francis has made a prudential judgment that, given present circumstances in society, there are no longer situations in which the death penalty is warranted.”

Since this is a development of doctrine…

The question remains: what has developed? Akin again: “…this judgment has been added to the social doctrine of the Church, which applies the underlying principles of its moral doctrine to concrete situations in society.”

This seems the very definition of a prudential judgment: the application of doctrine. As Dulles put it:

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances."

The statement of Cardinal Dulles, of blessed memory, is no longer appropriate in light of this development of doctrine.

Nothing about this particular development is relevant to Dulles’ comment, which was about what a prudential teaching is and what degree of assent it obliges. Akin’s comments seem self-contradictory: this teaching cannot be both prudential and require assent, which in any event may not be that big a problem if he is also right in holding that: “The underlying moral principles have not changed_…”

 

[Ender]

In terms of development, the thing that has developed most over the centuries is the Church’s awareness of the dignity of each person regardless of the acts they commit, and the hope of redemption for each person at the hands of God. Given that, it seems fitting that a person’s life should be spared so that God may work in that person.

I find these two arguments disturbing. I have a real problem accepting that for 2000 years, no Father or Doctor of the Church and indeed no pope (including BXVI and JPII) fully understood the true nature of man’s dignity. Are you not troubled by this? Beyond even that, how are we supposed to understand God’s words in Genesis when he said that a murderer forfeits his own life? This is a difficult concept to reconcile.

As to the question of cutting off someone’s chance of redemption by executing him, that doesn’t seem quite possible either.

“What is more, according to the Apostle Paul, God knows his own (2 Timothy 2.19), and it is impossible for any of them to perish by the whirlwinds and floods of any error, scandal, schism, persecution, heresy, tribulation, adversity or temptation, for he has foreseen from eternity and unchangeably the number of his elect…” (St. Albertus Magnus, On Cleaving to God #16)

But capital punishment implies that a prisoner is able to be controlled. And if they can be controlled, there is no reason to kill them in a premeditated fashion. That could be considered evil.

This argument is based on the belief that safety and security is the primary objective of punishment, but that in fact is not the case. The primary objective is retribution - retributive justice - and this is achieved only by applying a just punishment, that is, one that is of a severity commensurate with the severity of the crime, and does not introduce even more problems into society.

Given that the church has always accepted that death is a just punishment (for at least the crime of murder) as far as being of commensurate severity, the only other concern is whether it is appropriate in the particular circumstances. It seems to me that this is where JPII opposed its use. That of course is a judgment, and one which, as Cardinal Ratzinger stated, we may legitimately disagree.

 

[exnihilo]

Mr. Akin seems conflicted on this point because he also said: “ It appears that Pope Francis has made a prudential judgment that, given present circumstances in society, there are no longer situations in which the death penalty is warranted .”

And if this is a prudential judgement it doesn’t even seem to me a sound one. Prisoners not infrequently kill people in prison. They also harm people. Nicolas Cruz the high school shooter injured a guard.

As to the question of cutting off someone’s chance of redemption by executing him, that doesn’t seem quite possible either.

This doesn’t seem to me a good argument either. Knowing death is imminent tends to actually make people more repentant. There is no particular reason to think that someone who is a prisoner is more likely to repent. Sure there are jailhouse conversions, which can often be convenient for parole boards. But there are plenty of prisoners who continue to commit evil acts in prison until their last day.

 

[Ender]

This doesn’t seem to me a good argument either. Knowing death is imminent tends to actually make people more repentant.

The church herself recognizes this. In 2266, after saying…

“Moreover, punishment… has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.”

…it adds endnote 67 as an example of a punishment that in fact led to the repentance and salvation of the criminal. The reference is to Lk 23:40-43 which recounts the salvation of the good thief on the cross. That is, the reference to a punishment that contributes to the correction of the offender is to an instance of capital punishment.

 

[Emeraldlady]

I’m not aware of mass killings of unbelievers or saying certain groups are intrinsically un Christian. And the Church certainly never did either. And it never taught that was good. You’ll have to be specific if you are claiming otherwise.

In relation to our increased awareness of what accords with the dignity of the human being, the Church has reformulated the Office of the Inquisition which was focused on condemning heretics, to become the Office of Doctrine of Faith, focused on teaching and spreading knowledge of the faith. As well, the Church has recognised that non believers and pagans are not intrinsically damned but may be invincibly ignorant and still true to the voice of God in is heart. These reformulations represent the increasing awareness about Gods love for every person and that the seeds of faith no matter how small are sacred.