Church Teaching on Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Emeraldlady said:
The Church is directly teaching the immorality of using the death penalty today. You are denying that?
Click to expand...
Not according to This Article
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.

Consequently, 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. The underlying moral principles have not changed, but, in Pope Francis’s judgment, society has changed in a way that requires a different application of them.

This judgment is now reflected in the Church’s social doctrine, without contradicting prior teaching on the underlying moral principles. Thus Cardinal Ladaria says that the new formulation “expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.” It is the Church’s social doctrine that has developed, and its prior moral teachings have not been contradicted.
Click to expand...
 
AlmaRedemptorisMater said:
Pope Francis said ‘inadmissible’ not ‘immoral’. What that means is up for debate I guess.
Click to expand...
hope said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
The Church is directly teaching the immorality of using the death penalty today. You are denying that?
Click to expand...
Not according to This Article
If the death penalty is not being judged intrinsically evil, what has changed?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
Consequently, 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. The underlying moral principles have not changed, but, in Pope Francis’s judgment, society has changed in a way that requires a different application of them.
Click to expand...
This judgment is now reflected in the Church’s social doctrine, without contradicting prior teaching on the underlying moral principles. Thus Cardinal Ladaria says that the new formulation “expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.” It is the Church’s social doctrine that has developed, and its prior moral teachings have not been contradicted.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The article supports what the Church teaches and that is that the moral legitimacy of the death penalty is solely attached to the concrete situations in society. The Church teaches that in todays world, the death penalty is “unworthy”, “unnecessary” and “cruel” (The specific words of Pope SJPII) and “inadmissible” (the CCC).

What we have from a small faction of US Catholics is the claim that the moral legitimacy of the death penalty has nothing to do with the concrete situations in society. That is the whole point of the Church’s current strong stand against use of the death penalty. It’s just ducking and weaving and slight of hand trickery to state that the Church is not teaching a moral lesson.
 
Ender said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
The Church is directly teaching the immorality of using the death penalty today. You are denying that?
Click to expand...
Yes. I deny that that is what is being taught. The teaching is not that it is immoral but that it is unwise, that its use in current circumstances is harmful. That is a judgment, not a proclamation of fact.
Click to expand...
Except that’s just your personal opinion. Nowhere is the word ‘unwise’ used to explain the Church teaching. The Church is a universal teacher regarding faith and morals and has universal authority and obligations in that arena.
 
Last edited:
Emeraldlady said:
What we have from a small faction of US Catholics is the claim that the moral legitimacy of the death penalty has nothing to do with the concrete situations in society.
Click to expand...
I have not seen anyone make this claim and am quite confident you cannot cite anyone who actually said this. I’ve suggested before that you respond to what people actually say rather than to the interpretation you give to their words.
Emeraldlady said:
The Church is a universal teacher regarding faith and morals and has universal authority and obligations in that arena.
Click to expand...
The church indeed has universal authority in declaring moral doctrine, just not in the application of those doctrines. That is a responsibility we share. In that arena her word is in fact not absolute, as you should know by now as I have cited this comment any number of times.

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. (Cardinal Dulles)
 
He never did that. It’s against Church teaching to declare the death penalty immoral always and everywhere, and impossible for the Church to do so, that’s all. Any nation or state has the right to abolish the death penalty there, of course. 🙂
 
sealabeag said:
He never did that. It’s against Church teaching to declare the death penalty immoral always and everywhere, and impossible for the Church to do so, that’s all. Any nation or state has the right to abolish the death penalty there, of course. 🙂
Click to expand...
To use Ender’s words, “I have not seen anyone make this claim and am quite confident you cannot cite anyone who actually said this.” Emeraldlady did not say what you claim. The Church is teaching that we should work to abolish the death penalty. That does not imply “the death penalty immoral always and everywhere.”
 
I never said that she did say that… I didn’t say that she said anything! 😅 Anyway, I’ve gotten my answers and I’m pretty clear now, so no need for us all to continue arguing. 🙂
 
Yes, but in many cases, the alternative is solitary confinement for life, which many would regard as crueler than the death penalty. Let us count the cost.
 
mythbuster1 said:
Yes, but in many cases, the alternative is solitary confinement for life, which many would regard as crueler than the death penalty. Let us count the cost.
Click to expand...
I will let God decide if life is worth living. I think He said it is. Many times. (And I dispute that is the only alternative.)
 
Last edited:
Very well. My point was not to dispute that position, but rather to make advocates of abolition aware of the implications.
 
Where I stand on the topic now: I accept the whole body of teaching of the Church, yes. However, it seems that this particular issue is a prudential judgement, with which a faithful Catholic can simply disagree. Secondly, due to the ambiguity of the term “inadmissible”, I don’t feel that what is being said is clear enough for me to actually agree or disagree. Thirdly, it seems that the Catechism does not exist for the purpose of adding new teaching to the body of the Church - it is a compendium of pre-exisiting teaching, therefore I do question the practice of simply sticking new thoughts into the Catechism as a way of “developing” doctrine.

That’s roughly where I’m at with it all now. However, as a Catholic, am I confused by this Papacy? Yes. But I’m at peace, personally.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Where I stand on the topic now: I accept the whole body of teaching of the Church, yes. However, it seems that this particular issue is a prudential judgement, with which a faithful Catholic can simply disagree. Secondly, due to the ambiguity of the term “inadmissible”, I don’t feel that what is being said is clear enough for me to actually agree or disagree. Thirdly, it seems that the Catechism does not exist for the purpose of adding new teaching to the body of the Church - it is a compendium of pre-exisiting teaching, therefore I do question the practice of simply sticking new thoughts into the Catechism as a way of “developing” doctrine.

That’s roughly where I’m at with it all now. However, as a Catholic, am I confused by this Papacy? Yes. But I’m at peace, personally.
Click to expand...
I appreciate Ender’s efforts in this thread for bringing to light the enormous difference between catholic doctrines and prudential judgements, and the difference between retributive punishment and deterrence/prevention. Doctrines can not be changed; although it can be developed in the sense that development bings forth clarity and fuller understanding of particular doctrines.

As in the case of prudential judgments, popes and appropriate authorities in the Church throughout the life of the Church have made prudential judgments and declarations that were then added to the deposit of faith—from which the Catechism was subsequently based upon. Prudential judgements can be judgements based on doctrines. They are not changes to doctrines—which no authority on earth, including any popes or councils, can change. What was accepted as doctrines throughout the life/tradition of the Church can not now suddenly be rejected.

Similarly, our current edition of the Catechism was issued some 30 years ago during the pontificate of Pope St. John Paul and under the guidance of then Cardinal Ratzinger. This was the first time a new catechism was promulgated since the Council of Trent some 500 years ago. Catholic doctrines remained intact, but it was written in light of new doctrines, development of doctrines, prudential judgements and the changing world environment.
 
Last edited:
You would be hard pressed to find any issue that hasnt been flogged mercilessly.
 
I wonder how many innocent people have been executed and is it a fair price to pay for the demand for justice.
 
Because I hear people dismissing arguments about murderers continuing to kill from prison as “whataboutism,” or even referring to solitary confinement as torture. If a murderer continues to kill while in prison, and you can’t execute him, you have to deny him access to other people. Mercy cannot extend to levels which fail to incapacitate murderers.
 
The Pope put his opinion in the CCC. And that is his right as the pontiff. And a Catholic can disagree using historical teachings of the Church. The catechism contains the teachings of the Church. Most of them. Some infallible, some not. The purpose of the CCC is not to be a litmus test for if you can receive the Eucharist if you believe in the death penalty.

I will ask this again. Is any Catholic on a death penalty Jury culpable of sin in the delegation of justice?
 
As I understand it , the teaching has not changed, but the conditions have. Today there are many effective ways to deal with dangerous people without necessarily killing them. Also executing death penalty about a past crime when the prisoner is already locked up does not seem to be very charitable.
 
All those effective methods have existed for centuries. And there are so many governments and situations even in our modern world that I just don’t see how you can say it hasn’t changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top