Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[godisgood77]

I am not aware of anything else like this in the catechism, but this is not simply my opinion. Several others have commented on this as well.

This fact leads me to believe that we are talking about something more authoritative than a prudential judgement. We are talking about a formal Church teaching and a development of doctrine

 

[Emeraldlady]

I have always held that the comments of the last three popes on capital punishment represent their prudential judgments and not new doctrine, therefore to disagree with them is not disobedience.

You are going further than that though. You have stated a number of times in discussion that teaching abolition of the death penalty contradicts Church teaching. How can that be if Church doctrine has never held that the death penalty is intrinsically just?

 

[Isearch]

“Development of doctrine” is just another word for changing doctrine.

 

[Isearch]

The Roman Catholic Church tolerated slavery in the Roman context, which is just as bad or even worse than the slavery found in the Americas (e.g. slaves in the Roman Empire weren’t legally safe from sexual abuse). Also, it was accepted in the Church that masters could inherit the descendants of slaves as slaves. Admittedly, there were Church Fathers against slavery as a whole; but the Church in majority of her history permitted “just-titles” for slavery that are still repugnant to us (e.g. one can “justly” sell one’s child to slavery, provided the master doesn’t show signs of cruelty).

 

[godisgood77]

The Roman Catholic Church tolerated slavery in the Roman context, which is just as bad or even worse than the slavery found in the Americas (e.g. slaves in the Roman Empire weren’t legally safe from sexual abuse). Also, it was accepted in the Church that masters could inherit the descendants of slaves as slaves. Admittedly, there were Church Fathers against slavery as a whole; but the Church in majority of her history permitted “just-titles” for slavery that are still repugnant to us (e.g. one can “justly” sell one’s child to slavery, provided the master doesn’t show signs of cruelty).

Yes… the Church has been wrong, very wrong before… but the church also has a history of getting it right after getting it wrong …

 

[godisgood77]

“Development of doctrine” is just another word for changing doctrine.

Fine … no problem with that

Of course you will have Saint John Henry Newman to contend with…and disprove

 

[Anrakyr]

Doesn’t matter, the doctrine has been updated the conversation at this point is moot.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

I would suggest you read Bearing False Witness by Rodney Stark which refutes that commonly held misconception regarding the Church’s position on slavery (and many other positions the Catholic Church is maligned for).

 

[Ender]

This fact leads me to believe that we are talking about something more authoritative than a prudential judgement. We are talking about a formal Church teaching and a development of doctrine

The old doctrine was that capital punishment was a just punishment for the crime of (at least) murder, and States were justified in using it. The church teaches unambiguously even today that the punishment must fit the crime although circumstances may determine what penalty is actually applied.

What does the “new” doctrine doctrine say? Is capital punishment no longer a just punishment, and if not, why not? Is it no longer of commensurate severity with the crime…or has it simply been judged to be harmful in modern circumstances? There are real problems with asserting that something that was upheld in the past "so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority" (Innocent I) is now wrong.

Condemning a practice “that all hold to be permitted by God” seems a pretty bold step.

 

[OneSheep]

The Roman Catholic Church tolerated slavery in the Roman context, which is just as bad or even worse than the slavery found in the Americas (e.g. slaves in the Roman Empire weren’t legally safe from sexual abuse). Also, it was accepted in the Church that masters could inherit the descendants of slaves as slaves. Admittedly, there were Church Fathers against slavery as a whole; but the Church in majority of her history permitted “just-titles” for slavery that are still repugnant to us (e.g. one can “justly” sell one’s child to slavery, provided the master doesn’t show signs of cruelty).

godisgood77:

Yes… the Church has been wrong, very wrong before… but the church also has a history of getting it right after getting it wrong …

As for me, I will follow what I believe to be the doctrines the church has taught unchanged for millennia, and continue to argue against abolition, at least on moral grounds.

Ender, this is where your position negates the action of the Spirit in unfolding revelation. I addressed this in this post.

Above I quoted @godisgood77 describing an example of unfolding revelation.

I have offered questions concerning the “moral grounds”, starting with the purpose of morality itself, and you have left these unanswered.

Inasmuch as God himself has justified its use I do not believe there is any argument for banning it permanently without regard for the circumstances.

What circumstances might those be?

 

[Ender]

You are going further than that though. You have stated a number of times in discussion that teaching abolition of the death penalty contradicts Church teaching.

That’s not exactly what I’ve said. I believe my comment was that the church could not justify its permanent abolition. I have said repeatedly that circumstances can render its use inappropriate, and hence justify banning it temporarily. Inasmuch as God himself has justified its use I do not believe there is any argument for banning it permanently without regard for the circumstances.

How can that be if Church doctrine has never held that the death penalty is intrinsically just?

I wish you wouldn’t use that phrase; I don’t think it has any real meaning. So long as one’s intention can be immoral no act can be intrinsically just, including what we normally consider virtuous acts like almsgiving.

 

[Maximus1]

I think that is reasonable. I tend to believe that the choice of inadmissible was intended to avoid impugning former teaching.
The concept of an eternal or perpetual truth it seems creates difficulty in reconciling with a reality of linear time and evolution. It is important to remember the truth is eternal but we are not. We do evolve. ( Hopefully). Our understanding evolves. And the change is, and it does not necessitate a right and wrong Christian over time.
Should be a disclaimer on discussing ideas like eternal truth and intrinsic evil.

 

[Ender]

Admittedly, there were Church Fathers against slavery as a whole; but the Church in majority of her history permitted “just-titles” for slavery that are still repugnant to us

I believe the church’s history with regard to slavery is at worst spotty; there was never a consensus that accepted it, and certainly never a time when denying its validity was considered heresy. With regard to capital punishment, however, the church Fathers and Doctors were virtually unanimous in accepting it, and it was in fact held to be heretical to condemn its validity. The two issues are not at all comparable.

Of course you will have Saint John Henry Newman to contend with…and disprove

Regarding the development of doctrine, Newman said " “A development , to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started.” By that standard it is not possible to consider the change of a doctrine from “It is permitted” to “It is not permitted” as a valid development.

Doesn’t matter, the doctrine has been updated the conversation at this point is moot.

An assertion is not an argument, and so far the arguments supporting this claim are quite weak.

 

[godisgood77]

Here is what the Church says…

‘Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

The development in this case is a deeper awareness and understanding of the dignity of the human purpose which has caused the Church was to change its position on capital punishment.

I get that some people don’t like or agree with this development, but the hierarchical Church is the authority and we are not.

 

[Ender]

Ender, this is where your position negates the action of the Spirit in unfolding revelation. I addressed this in this post.

I believe there are two options in that regard: either (1) the Spirit waited for 2000 years to correct not only the church, but Scripture and the word of God himself, or (2) this “change” isn’t what you think it is.

I have offered questions concerning the “moral grounds”, starting with the purpose of morality itself, and you have left these unanswered.

True, I didn’t feel the necessity to justify morality. I accept it.

What circumstances might those be?

“if it is evident that the infliction of punishment will result in more numerous and more grievous sins being committed, the infliction of punishment will no longer be a part of justice.” (Aquinas)

The application of a punishment always involves prudential judgment. If it is the judgment of those responsible for deciding the penalty that this or that particular punishment will lead to a harmful outcome, it should not be applied in that instance.

I tend to believe that the choice of inadmissible was intended to avoid impugning former teaching.

I do too. I think it was meant to get the effect of calling it evil without actually having to make the claim explicitly.

The concept of an eternal or perpetual truth it seems creates difficulty in reconciling with a reality of linear time and evolution. It is important to remember the truth is eternal but we are not. We do evolve. ( Hopefully). Our understanding evolves.

“Evolution” cannot extend to believing that what was moral yesterday is immoral today. That is repudiation, not development. We cannot believe that what was true before has become untrue today; we can only believe that if we are right today we were wrong before. I don’t think people understand the implication of taking that position. It would mean the church taught serious error from the beginning…and cannot in fact be what she claims to be.

 

[Elf01]

I believe there are two options in that regard: either (1) the Spirit waited for 2000 years to correct not only the church, but Scripture and the word of God himself, or (2) this “change” isn’t what you think it is.

Is death the appropriate punishment for working on the sabbath?

 

[Maximus1]

Your last point first here.
The idea of “evolution” and your example of wrong yesterday and right today.
Let me begin by saying it is not that simple idea. Hence the word evolution.
Examples of this?
Jesus teaching on abortion. He first addresses the law of Moses. Putting your wife away( Bill of Divorce).
Now he offers an explanation for what is a change. Evolving from the law of Moses to this new law. And he offers an explanation for the evolution and change.
" It was the law when men’s hearts were hard, but it was not always this way."
The change " assumes" evolution. Men’s hearts were hard… Now they are not so this new doctrine is the law.
I get the fact that things were not always this way, ( the garden). Irrelevant.
Because Jesus departs from Moses.
And now the issue you raise. Was Moses wrong? Evil? Teaching evil?
NO!!!
Jesus does not suggest this at all.
Moses Law was appropriate in his time.
And second issue you raise, does the sky really fall?
No! Moses is there. God’s first and second covenant remain covenants. Nothing blew up.
Jesus didn’t call Moses teaching serious error, I fact he took the time to explain why it wasn’t. As Francis did here.
Need another example?
The Adulteress.
Jesus is asked about the appropriateness of stoning as a Capital punishment. Specifically, is Moses Law just.
Does Jesus negate Moses Law? No!
He leaves it intact. Makes no criticism.
He offers a different Doctrine about casting first stones.
Completely seperate Doctrine.
One involves death penalty and just punishment.
The other focuses on the stone throwers. His qualifications to be a " righteous stone throwers"
Moses law is intact. But nobody to effectuate. That didn’t change the Capital punishment law. It changed the participant pool.
So I don’t know what more you might want besides these clear examples.
Smaller issues are:
You didn’t feel the necessity to justify morality. You just accept it.
Fundamentalists find this type of thinking attractive. Personally, I look to John 15:15.
Fundamentalists like to judge. Who doesn’t. ( Gives a bitching worthiness buzz).
They seem to compete over things like .
" Well I believe exactly 7 days for creation. " Real days" 24 hours"
To only be topped by, “Yes, but for me, calculated Eastern Standard time”
Less questioning…then more blind Faith…then willing to suspend reality more. This somehow makes a better Christian.
There is a place for obedience. But
John 15:15. Check it out. Friend and not slave. Jesus taught us why and also to exercise why. To incorporate the Gospel of Freedom and Judgement of Mercy also.
A SLAVE CANNOT DO THAT.
A slave can only judge his own value to his master via blind obedience to task. The task is the Alfa and Omega of his righteousness. The sole criteria.
How well a slave Carry’s out brute task mindlessly creates his righteousness.
This is not the faith of friend/ Christian.

 

[Ender]

Is death the appropriate punishment for working on the sabbath?

First, I’m pretty sure the church never taught that it was, but neither am I interested in arguing all the circumstances where death is or is not an appropriate punishment. It is sufficient for my position that it be considered a just punishment for murder.

 

[Elf01]

First, I’m pretty sure the church never taught that it was, but neither am I interested in arguing all the circumstances where death is or is not an appropriate punishment.

Scripture does.

 

[Ender]

Because Jesus departs from Moses.

It is one thing for Jesus to depart from Moses, but quite another for us to depart from God. The legitimacy of capital punishment was set by God so it does seem a bit presumptuous of us to decide to change that.

Moses Law was appropriate in his time.

The teaching on capital punishment is part of the covenant with Noah, which is in effect for all time.

Jesus is asked about the appropriateness of stoning as a Capital punishment. Specifically, is Moses Law just.

No, that was never the issue this incident raised nor has the church ever used this incident in her discussion of capital punishment. St. Ambrose discussed the incident in that context but never suggested that Christ’s action negated its validity.

You didn’t feel the necessity to justify morality. You just accept it…This is not the faith of friend/ Christian.

Really? My faith in God is bad? When did trust in his word become inappropriate?