capital punishment

[Rau]

…Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined 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.

It is not possible to see that statement as equivalent to 2267. Could you please rephrase 2267 to explain it, not to reword it to say something different.

 

[adrift]

It is not possible to see that statement as equivalent to 2267. Could you please rephrase 2267 to explain it, not to reword it to say something different.

Why do you say it is not equivalent? Perhaps you can explain why. I don’t see it saying something different. What is different?

I have been thinking about the way the sentenced is structured.

Perhaps if we restructure it you will see what I mean. This is the way I believe it was meant.

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

 

[adrift]

I think this might have been posted before but I can’t find it now.

Did the Church change its Teaching of the death penalty?

Capital Punishment - The Pope’s Position

 

[Rau]

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

That says the same thing that 2267 says. It means that “not excluding recourse to the death penalty” has been SUBJECT TO the assumption in brackets and THEREFORE if that assumption can’t be made/does not apply, the traditional teaching DOES exclude recourse to the death penalty.

Whether it’s an “if” clause, or an “assuming” clause, you cannot escape that that is a condition on the statement about the traditional teaching! The statement only stands with that condition met.

You are trying to have the statement mean the same thing REGARDLESS of whether the assumption applies. That would make a mockery of the language - it would be to assert that the “assumption” means nothing and has no role.

 

[adrift]

That says the same thing that 2267 says. It means that “not excluding recourse to the death penalty” has been SUBJECT TO the assumption in brackets and THEREFORE if that assumption can’t be made/does not apply, the traditional teaching DOES exclude recourse to the death penalty.

Whether it’s an “if” clause, or an “assuming” clause, you cannot escape that that is a condition on the statement about the traditional teaching! The statement only stands with that condition met.

You are trying to have the statement mean the same thing REGARDLESS of whether the assumption applies. That would make a mockery of the language - it would be to assert that the “assumption” means nothing and has no role.

Of course it means the same thing, what we don’t agree on is what the meaning is. Parentheses are used as an explanation or additional information. Here it is explaining when the death penalty could be used not that this information belonged to the traditional use.

Now answer the question I asked please.

 

[Ender]

So, in summary, you believe:

• the Catechism states a falsehood

What I’m sure of is this: the 1992 and 1997 versions of the catechism have two different descriptions of the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment. One has the restriction tying its use to the need for protection, and the other does not. Inasmuch as they cannot both be right it is clear that one of them is inaccurate, and as they have equal claim to being a “sure statement of Catholic doctrine” it should also be clear that this doesn’t prevent them from containing an inaccuracy.

Finally, given that at least a half dozen previous catechisms support the 1992 version, and there is nothing that supports the 1997 version, it seems fairly evident which description is the better of the two.

• the “instructional statement” I quoted should be understood to be qualified to explain that it is really just an opinion.

If you can believe what the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church says, yes.

And despite this, we are to view the Catechism as a sure statement of catholic doctrine? How can such “incompetence” in fact and expression stand in the primary doctrinal communication of the Church, for nearly 18 years?

Good question. This needs to be addressed and resolved.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. The discussion of the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is so difficult to interpret that conscientious members of the faithful scarcely know what their Church obliges them to believe. Although the constant teaching of the Church has been that the state has a right to impose the death penalty, the Catechism declares that the actual circumstances in which capital punishment is legitimate are “practically nonexistent.” Moreover, the Catechism weaves doctrine so tightly together with prudential and factual judgments that it is not at all clear how much of its discourse on capital punishment actually is being put forward as binding Catholic teaching. *(R. Michael Dunnigan J.D., J.C.L. - 2003)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Why do you say it is not equivalent? Perhaps you can explain why. I don’t see it saying something different. What is different?

Here are the descriptions from both the 1992 and 1997 versions as to the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment.1992 - 2266 The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.

*1997 - 2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, **when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
***The two statements are phrased differently but mean exactly the same thing until you get to the part in bold letters. This is the difference between them: the 1997 version contains a restriction on capital punishment that is not contained in the 1992 version.

As you pointed out, there are no references in the 1997 version to any document that supports its description of the church’s teaching, and I’m willing to bet that there are no references because there are no supporting documents. As I said, I can reference a half dozen earlier documents that support the 1992 version, but I have never encountered a single statement supporting the restriction the 1997 version claims exists.

Ender

 

[Tomdstone]

What I’m sure of is this: the 1992 and 1997 versions of the catechism have two different descriptions of the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment.

Could it be that the Roman Catholic Church has essentially changed the teaching on this point? In that event, should you not go with the more recent teaching as the correct one. Take for example the teaching on torture. Previously it was allowed
(under certain restricted conditions), but now it is not.

 

[Rau]

Of course it means the same thing, what we don’t agree on is what the meaning is. Parentheses are used as an explanation or additional information. Here it is explaining when the death penalty could be used not that this information belonged to the traditional use.

Now answer the question I asked please.

I am not defending or criticising anything, so I am not interested in trying to provide citations to prove something is right or wrong. Its rightness or wrongness is not in debate (not by me anyway). The simple meaning of a sentence is in question.

2267 says the traditional teaching is X, assuming Y. It makes Y a prerequisite element in that teaching, and therefore integral to it. You want to say 2267 says the traditional teaching is X regardless of Y. In which case the words “Y” are totally superfluous, given that on their own, they make no independent sense.

I note that no other poster, nor the references you point to, support your “understanding” of this sentence.

 

[adrift]

Could it be that the Roman Catholic Church has essentially changed the teaching on this point? In that event, should you not go with the more recent teaching as the correct one. Take for example the teaching on torture. Previously it was allowed
(under certain restricted conditions), but now it is not.

My links in 181 answer this but simply no there no change of teachings.

 

[Ender]

Could it be that the Roman Catholic Church has essentially changed the teaching on this point? In that event, should you not go with the more recent teaching as the correct one.

The only problem with this is that while a teaching can be changed in the present it cannot be changed in the past. Either something was or was not restricted in the past, and while it can be restricted today we cannot go back 100 years and retroactively restrict it. Both the 1997 and the 1992 versions of the catechism stated they were describing what was taught in the past, yet they have different versions of that teaching. In this case the more recent teaching has no better claim to historical accuracy than the earlier version, and as we have seen, it is the earlier version that appears to be the one that is factually correct.

Ender

 

[adrift]

I am not defending or criticising anything, so I am not interested in trying to provide citations to prove something is right or wrong. Its rightness or wrongness is not in debate (not by me anyway). The simple meaning of a sentence is in question.

2267 says the traditional teaching is X, assuming Y. It makes Y a prerequisite element in that teaching, and therefore integral to it. You want to say 2267 says the traditional teaching is X regardless of Y. In which case the words “Y” are totally superfluous, given that on their own, they make no independent sense.

I note that no other poster, nor the references you point to, support your “understanding” of this sentence.

2267 says the traditional teaching is the state has the right to execute. It does not say that this tradition is predicated on finding the person guilty nor if it is the only way to protect society. I would point out that the truth of an argument does not rely on others opinions. You must not have read my links which do indeed support my understanding.

 

[Rau]

2267 says the traditional teaching is the state has the right to execute. It does not say that this tradition is predicated on finding the person guilty nor if it is the only way to protect society. I would point out that the truth of an argument does not rely on others opinions.

You say 2267 says:
“the traditional teaching is the state has the right to execute.”

The Catechism 2267 actually says:
*"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. *

Let us ask this question:

• If the guilty party’s responsibility has **not **been fully determined, does the traditional teaching still allow recourse to the death penalty? I think not, for that clearly would be an immoral act - you see, the condition matters! [Or are you saying the Church has traditionally not concerned itself about the question of who is executed as a consequence of a crime? Did the Church traditionally teach that it is OK to execute anyone?]

The same is true of the other conditional at the end of the sentence! It no less applies as the sentence is written.

You must not have read my links which do indeed support my understanding.

Please show me where your links explain the “if” clause in 2267 does not matter to the meaning of the sentence.

 

[LongingSoul]

Here are the descriptions from both the 1992 and 1997 versions as to the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment.1992 - 2266 The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.

*1997 - 2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, **when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
***The two statements are phrased differently but mean exactly the same thing until you get to the part in bold letters. This is the difference between them: the 1997 version contains a restriction on capital punishment that is not contained in the 1992 version.

As you pointed out, there are no references in the 1997 version to any document that supports its description of the church’s teaching, and I’m willing to bet that there are no references because there are no supporting documents. As I said, I can reference a half dozen earlier documents that support the 1992 version, but I have never encountered a single statement supporting the restriction the 1997 version claims exists.

Ender

The natural assumption should be that the bolded part was implicit to the doctrine all along. For example today we might embrace a statement

“Assuming the weather warrants it, the traditional teaching does not exclude recourse to using seal or sable pelts as clothes, if this is the only possible way of effectively keeping warm in an extreme climate.”

We make a statement to that effect in an environment where it is unethical and illegal to use most animal pelts for clothing since we are much more aware of the importance of those diverse breeds to the ecology and that to do it on principle alone is cruel, unnecessary and arrogant. Our ancestors of course weren’t cruel and arrogant since that was their only choice in many many cases and necessary for them to use pelts.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil but it is unnecessary today in a way that couldn’t have been predicted by our ancestors. That’s the nature of every practical thing from generation to generation.

 

[adrift]

[The Church’s Evolving View on the Death Penalty

by The Most Reverend Wilton D. Gregory
Archbishop of Atlanta ](Summary of Church Teaching on the Death Penalty | Catholics For The Common Good)

An interesting read.

In the short span of time between the first edition of the text and the final official Latin version issued in 1997, the section pertaining to the death penalty was significantly revised. What brought about this change in the catechetical presentation of the church’s moral stance?

The key distinction between the original and the official versions of the catechism’s exposition of the morality of the death penalty is the way in which the purposes of punishment are defined. We see that in the provisional, or first, edition the section on the death penalty upheld a traditional Catholic principle, namely, “the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty.”(2)

The 1992 text then asserts that “the primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.”(3) Finally, it states, “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”(4)

I give in to your interpretation and point out that this article supports the idea that it is a departure from tradition.

It appears, then, that the revised Catholic teaching on capital punishment is closely associated with the influence of the late pontiff

At this point I would like to provide a brief review of the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church prior to changes in the catechism

It also seems that in the past limit were put on the death penalty

Following the Edict of Milan by Constantine (313) and the rise of the Christian state, Christian authorities adopted a near unanimous support for capital punishment in delimited circumstances.(15) Augustine of Hippo, for example, asserted that participation in war or in the legal execution of criminals in no way contravenes the commandment “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13). Yet the Latin doctor also maintained the necessity of purity of motive when carrying out a capital sentence.(16) Acting as judge or executioner requires an interior disposition of remorse

One more quote but you actually should get the context and read the article.

Justice Scalia takes the position that the church, which has always permitted the use of the death penalty, has changed its historic position in the already-mentioned passages of the catechism and in John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae.(30) Such alterations in traditional moral teaching, he argues, were imprudent to say the least

 

[adrift]

So, in summary, you believe:

• the Catechism states a falsehood
• the “instructional statement” I quoted should be understood to be qualified to explain that it is really just an opinion.

And despite this, we are to view the Catechism as a sure statement of catholic doctrine? How can such “incompetence” in fact and expression stand in the primary doctrinal communication of the Church, for nearly 18 years?

You have convinced me that
The Catechism states a falsehood. It is not infallible of course. As for your question, I have wondered why the Bishops have not corrected the notes in the Bible. Why they don’t do their job I have no idea:shrug: There are many things that the Bishops let go on to long.

 

[Tomdstone]

My links in 181 answer this but simply no there no change of teachings.

You have convinced me that
The Catechism states a falsehood.

If there was no change in teaching and the teaching is false, what does that mean?

 

[Rau]

If there was no change in teaching and the teaching is false, what does that mean?

It’s not suggested that any teaching was false, it’s only questioned whether the description given of the traditional teaching is an accurate characterisation of it. It is decidedly a 2nd order issue compared with whether or not the Church has contradicted a teaching. It seems clear to me it has not.

There is no doubt that traditional teaching permits the use of the death penalty in suitable conditions. And as the speech (ccgaction.org/node/1126) by the Archbishop of Atlanta demonstrates, there is no doubt that the Church required that, if it is used, it must be “with justice, and not out of hatred; with prudence, and not with precipitation.”

The following article includes quite a good discussion. catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty It makes a number of good points:

1. The Death Penalty was never taught as mandatory;
2. Using it ought to be akin to amputation - it is something done when it’s the last option. [This being a consequence of the great weight attached to ending a life.]

Its last paragraph reads:

In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that both defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices. This teaching does not reverse any previous Church teaching, since no previous Church teaching had addressed the question of the relationship among the various purposes of punishment in the case of the death penalty. The contemporary Catholic teaching on the death penalty is not a simple rejection of traditional Catholic teaching on the topic, but it does substantially deepen the Church’s perennial dedication to the dignity of the human person and the common good of society.

 

[Ender]

The natural assumption should be that the bolded part was implicit to the doctrine all along.

There is no valid reason to assume that a restriction has existed for 2000 years without ever once being expressed or even suggested. If it was implicit in the doctrine where was it implied, and how could it have gone completely unnoticed by so many for so long? There is no reason to assume the restriction was implicit in the doctrine since there is nothing in the doctrine that implies it. To the contrary, if anything is implied it is that the restriction is inaccurate. This has been asked before: how can a secondary objective override the demands of the primary objective?

It is asserted that modern society has improved its penal system over that of the past so that criminals can be safely locked away, but I have never read anything to substantiate this claim. Life sentences were used in the past and I’m willing to bet that in the past those who were imprisoned weren’t continuing to run their criminal enterprises from their cells.

Ender

 

[Ender]

It’s not suggested that any teaching was false, it’s only questioned whether the description given of the traditional teaching is an accurate characterisation of it.

Agreed.

It is decidedly a 2nd order issue compared with whether or not the Church has contradicted a teaching. It seems clear to me it has not.

There is no contradiction because the teaching has not changed, and it has not changed because 2267 discusses the prudential application of the doctrine and does not alter the doctrine itself.

The following article includes quite a good discussion. catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty It makes a number of good points:

1. The Death Penalty was never taught as mandatory;

This is a bit misleading. What Kaczor said was: “*Traditional Catholic teaching does not demand the death penalty for every single case of murder.” *This is certainly true; the church has always acknowledged the possibility of external circumstances that could determine what punishment was appropriate. The application of punishment is always prudential. That said, it is clear that “crime and punishment must be proportionate”, and capital punishment has always been accepted as the proportionate punishment for murder.

Its last paragraph reads:In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul teaches that both defense of society and retribution are necessary for the legitimate exercise of capital punishment, and neither alone suffices.

I think this is the strongest argument one can present for the new restriction on capital punishment. The question is: is it reasonable? What is implied here is that imprisonment is a just punishment for every crime no matter how heinous, that no crime is so wicked that it deserves death. That is not the position taken by the Catechism of Trent and seems to directly contradict the words of Gn 9:5-6 (repeated again in CCC 2260).

Ender