Church Teaching on Death Penalty

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Randolph said:
The word “inadmissible” is indeed a vague and loaded word.
Click to expand...
From my perspective, the issue does not even stem from the use of the word “inadmissable”. The issue arises from a failure within the Catechism to explicitly detail why human life is considered sacred and inviolable in this context (we are made in God’s image), nor what is and is not entrusted to us within that sacredness, much less what is meant by violability. There seems to be an implicit assumption that the mechanics of death are what violate the human life, or that death itself is the root of the sin, not the intentions of those who enact death. But this is patently incorrect.
 
Last edited:
I consider myself a devout Catholic. But I’m also going to take a step in the opposite direction of some of my fellow faithful and answer your first question in the positive. Yes, you can disagree with a catechism. If you couldn’t, then some very powerful people (ie Francis) would be guilty of contradicting previous editions.

The catechism is not a binding pastoral document. It is an educational compendium meant to outline all that the Church teaches and holds to be true, but it is not free from error. For instance, while the present catechism states that capital punishment is inadmissable, this is not in fact a dogma of the Church. Nowhere is such a ruling defined doctrinally.

As to you second question, the answer largely depends on what you mean by “Church teaching”. If you mean doctrine, it cannot change. And we must truly thank God that it never has–it has only deepened and broadened without ever changing.

If, however, you mean any other educational resource that either the Vatican or a particular episcopate has endorsed, but which is not pastoral in origin, the simplest answer is: we’re human. People get crap wrong. And that is why time and time again, when either doctrine has been (superficially) threatened by errant instruction, or the laity and clergy have been placed at risk of scandal, the Magisterium has been moved by the Holy Spirit to define some aspect of faith and morality dogmatically.
 
That’s somewhat ridiculous in many parts of the world to have a notion jails are secure to keep people in. Many third world countries the police are in on the illegal stuff going on.
 
I think that the revision of the catechism with regard to the death penalty has to do with current circumstances of the penal system, not so much the underlying doctrine.
 
JimG said:
has to do with current circumstances of the penal system,
Click to expand...
Where is Pope Francis talking about though? He provided no definition, no example, nothing. Just some weird blanket statement about the state of prisons as though they’re all uniformly secure (whatever that means, since even in America there are prison breaks). It’s a useless addition to the catechism as is without definitions or examples.
 
Last edited:
In addition to jail breaks, there have been convicted murderous mobsters/gangsters who continued their criminal enterprise in and outside of prisons, and even gave killing orders.
 
Last edited:
Yeah I think Pope Francis, like many, may be operating on a misunderstanding about justice and what justice systems are meant to do.

The conventional image of a prison where someone just “does time” is not justice proper. Nor does the prison exist merely to keep the crazies from society. Nor either should the goal of imprisonment be “rehabilitation”. (Rehabilitation occurs within the subject as a result of their own actions of atonement). Instead, penal justice has as its true end the goal of remedy to be extracted from the criminal as payment for their crime

Time in prison alone is not a remedy. It is at best a deterrent, and should rather be seen not as remedy, but as a facilitating tool for the fulfillment of remedy. In the same way that I do not get paid for merely being present at my place of employment, payment must be extracted through hard work. Earn the tax money that houses you, and earn the forgiveness of the people and the courts.

Personally, I say bring back the chain gangs. When prisons become institutions of work that are accountable to an authority beyond themselves, maybe the crappy and corrupt corrections hierarchies will also begin to fall to the wayside.
 
Randolph said:
The late Father Hardon wrote a good article regarding Capital Punishment in the history of the Church
Click to expand...
Regarding that article, in it he also said this:

Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium. There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world.

Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.
 
Sorry, bit confused by this - is he saying that defending the death penalty as morally acceptable is a sin? 🤔
Edit: Oops, no, I get it now!! Wow. So the death penalty as a moral means of justice is actually a binding Catholic teaching?
This adds more confusion to the fire!
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Hi,
I was just reading through my Catechism regarding the death penalty, and comparing it with the fact that Pope Francis has now changed the Catechism to declare the death penalty “inadmissible”.
I find the previous Church teaching much more balanced and sensible.
So I’m left with a couple of problems for which I have questions:
  1. I cannot find myself able to accept this “new” teaching of Pope Francis. Does a Catholic have to accept everything in the Catechism? Can I disagree with this teaching of the Pope in the Catechism? And if so, why this teaching and not others?
  2. How can a teaching of the Church change? I understand societies ability to reform and house prisoners without the need for the death penalty has increased greatly, especially in the west, however surely what is morally acceptable cannot change?
It’s all a bit confusing.
Any light that could be shed would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Ironically? The net impact upon the world wrt the original vs the “new” is virtually negligible …
Original — 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 non-existent.”

Whereby “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” is Changed to - ‘inadmissible’

“are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” – approaches ZERO …

So. .Inadmissible? An arguable Change for the sake of “Changing” Doctrine …
which in turn may impact upon zero people - whilst maybe opening the door for more change
such as The Our Father?

Many would have liked to see More Volume from the Vatican re: The inadmissibility of Catholics Voting for Pro-Abortion Political Candidates

Abortion = Murder

Total Global Abortion Numbers have easily surpassed the One Billion numbers of babes in the Womb.

POINT?

Keep your Faith in Jesus!
 
sealabeag said:
So the death penalty as a moral means of justice is actually a binding Catholic teaching?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe it is. In the past it was a heresy to hold that capital punishment was per se immoral. I don’t think that can ever change.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)
 
sealabeag said:
Hi,
I was just reading through my Catechism regarding the death penalty, and comparing it with the fact that Pope Francis has now changed the Catechism to declare the death penalty “inadmissible”.
I find the previous Church teaching much more balanced and sensible.
So I’m left with a couple of problems for which I have questions:
  1. I cannot find myself able to accept this “new” teaching of Pope Francis. Does a Catholic have to accept everything in the Catechism? Can I disagree with this teaching of the Pope in the Catechism? And if so, why this teaching and not others?
  2. How can a teaching of the Church change? I understand societies ability to reform and house prisoners without the need for the death penalty has increased greatly, especially in the west, however surely what is morally acceptable cannot change?
It’s all a bit confusing.
Any light that could be shed would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Before I chime in I just want to gauge what you mean by “previous” Church teaching. Bearing in mind this snippet of the Church’s trajectory to where we are now.

“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Pope John Paul II Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform . I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).

"Together with the Synod members, I draw the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty and to reform the penal system in a way that ensures respect for the prisoners’ human dignity. Pastoral workers have the task of studying and recommending restorative justice as a means and a process for promoting reconciliation, justice and peace, and the return of victims and offenders to the community. (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Africae Munus of Pope Benedict XVI - November 2011)

"No Justice without Life. I express my hope that your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order. (Pope Benedict XVI’s Address to the Community of Sant’Egidio, November 30, 2011)

So my question is, do you mean Church teaching prior to Paul VI who abolished capital punishment at the Vatican in 1969, John Paul II and Benedict XVI ?
 
Last edited:
I mean none of the above. Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching doesn’t actually affect my question. Even though he considered it an unworthy punishment, as did Pope Benedict and as does Pope Francis, he didn’t go so far as to publicly define Church teaching to oppose the previous 2000 years of Church teaching so as to make it immoral. But I now realise Pope Francis hasn’t done that either, I was just confused by the fact that he had appeared to do so. I’m much clearer on the situation now.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching doesn’t actually affect my question. Even though he considered it an unworthy punishment, as did Pope Benedict and as does Pope Francis, he didn’t go so far as to publicly define Church teaching to oppose the previous 2000 years of Church teaching so as to make it immoral.
Click to expand...
The gist of Church teaching is that it is no longer a moral option to use the death penalty. It causes more harm to the common good than health. If the faction that promotes capital punishment as legitimate based on the States ‘personal opinion’ continues to claim Catholic support, I predict the Church will go further in teaching. So much as to teach applying the death penalty without reference to the common good, is murder.
 
Emeraldlady said:
The gist of Church teaching is that it is no longer a moral option to use the death penalty. It causes more harm to the common good than health.
Click to expand...
The assertion that capital punishment causes more harm than good is a practical judgment, not a moral one, and it is a judgment left to those who have responsibility for the common good to make.
 
Ender said:
The assertion that capital punishment causes more harm than good is a practical judgment, not a moral one, and it is a judgment left to those who have responsibility for the common good to make.
Click to expand...
Case in point… It is estimated in China alone between 70,000 and 200,000 children are being kidnapped/abducted a year. These children are then sold in the black markets for about $15,000 to $50,000 per child. These are horrendous crimes that proper authority has the right and the responsibility to exact the right punishments and appropriate measures to ensure the safety of the children. The death penalty is an option that ensures the kidnappers will not have a chance to repeat their crimes which send the children to where you don’t want to know. This is for the common good in their society. The current punishment for kidnappers in China ranges from 5-10 years in prison with a fine to facing the death penalty. Just think of the revolving doors for the convicted kidnappers who are later released back in the street. Below is an article of a particular death penalty case:

www.straitstimes.com

Child trafficker kingpin gets death penalty in China

BEIJING (CHINA DAILY/ASIA NEWS NETWORK) - The head of a criminal gang that abducted and trafficked children has been sentenced to death with a two-year reprieve in the south-western coastal city of Maoming in Guangdong province. Read more at straitstimes.com.
www.straitstimes.com www.straitstimes.com
 
Last edited:
“I predict the Church will go further in teaching. So much as to teach applying the death penalty without reference to the common good, is murder.”

Impossible, this would be for the Church to actually change her position, to state that which was once moral is now immoral. No?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top