Church Teaching on Death Penalty

[Ender]

first Trimester abortions have not always been treated as murder, as the COMMANDMENT intends murder defined.
The identification of what is intrinsic evil seems to have changed.

Abortion at any time has always been considered evil. As you say, early abortions were not considered to be murder, but they were still evil.

We had ensoulment. And as far as my reading, the " crime" of abortion before ensoulment was once fornication, not murder.

No, married women were subject to the same penalties for procuring an abortion and clearly there was no question of fornication involved.

The identification of what is intrinsic evil seems to have changed.

The definition of what was considered murder was expanded when it was understood that even from conception the fetus was human, but the definition of abortion as evil even from its earliest moments did not.

In the Capital punishment case, having no declaration now of intrinsic evil avoids a conflict then and now.

There would be a huge issue of capital punishment was suddenly declared an intrinsic evil inasmuch as the church has steadfastly held it was valid and appropriate. Not to mention the fact that God himself commanded it. That’s a pretty high hurdle to overcome.

 

[Ender]

You refuse to address the Church’s position on the development of its doctrine relative the dignity of the human person which is the actual core question…which has been taught by successive Popes and is now codified in the Catechism of the Church. Either you can’t or won’t respond to what, at face value, is a pretty simple question.

I don’t know what “relative to human dignity” means. Does it mean that capital punishment is never justified, or simply that it is now harder to justify? What conclusions are we to draw from our new insight? This is not a simple question. Something is implied that is not stated, and that is a serious problem as it invites multiple interpretations without clarifying which is correct.

I find it interesting that you defend Caligula’s and Nero’s authority… but seemingly reject the Church’s authority to more fully develop her doctrine.

I defend the authority of Caligula and Nero because the church does, and I have not rejected the church’s authority to “develop” doctrines. What I reject is the idea that any change no matter how extreme can legitimately be called a development. Specifically, the reversal of a doctrine cannot be considered development, at least not according to one of the church’s great expositor’s on the subject (Cdl Newman).

 

[Maximus1]

I did not see a declaration of intrinsic evil when ensoulment was the doctrine in the adjudications or church law. In fact the law meandered back and forth till the late 1880s. The catechism itself amended in 1906 approximately. Your words which I said I had difficulty with was INTRINSIC EVIL.
I saw adjudication for fornication with the question of fact decided in adjudication of ," whether ensoulment had taken place."
Murder was expanded or you could say the beginning of when a child is fully formed begins at conception.
" God’s Commandment was not touched in the example of Jesus and his teaching with the Adulteress.
Jesus gave us something else to abide by. And there were no stone throwers to throw. That was Capital punishment for a violation of a Commandment of God. Murder involves another Commandment( thou shall not). There is no qualitative difference. Jesus did not contradict God, nor alter his commandment. He left it intact as a just statement of penalty.
The penalty is directed at the Adulteress. The directive about throwing stones to the " righteous" stone throwers. The effect was no capital punishment.
I think there is plenty of similarity here. And justification for using less than Capital punishment to accomplish a doctrine based on dignity of the human being.
Intrinsic evil vs evil? That is a new parcing you raise. So let’s address it.
The same abortion, according to you, has a tag of evil( first 90 or so days) and intrinsic evil after that. Same abortion! That cannot be an equivilent.

 

[godisgood77]

I don’t know what “ relative to human dignity ” means. Does it mean that capital punishment is never justified, or simply that it is now harder to justify? What conclusions are we to draw from our new insight? This is not a simple question. Something is implied that is not stated, and that is a serious problem as it invites multiple interpretations without clarifying which is correct.

I could link back to the Church’s teaching and statements on these things - which I believe to be quite clear - but you either aren’t reading them or refuse to accept their explanations; including the CDF’s clear statements concerning the development of this doctrine…

I defend the authority of Caligula and Nero because the church does, and I have not rejected the church’s authority to “ develop ” doctrines. What I reject is the idea that any change no matter how extreme can legitimately be called a development.

Again, I’d reference the CDF’s elucidation on the development of this doctrine. I am personally struck by how clear this particular segment is…

If, in fact, the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good, today the increasing understanding that the dignity of a person is not lost even after committing the most serious crimes, the deepened understanding of the significance of penal sanctions applied by the State, and the development of more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens have given rise to a new awareness that recognizes the inadmissibility of the death penalty and, therefore, calling for its abolition.

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html

 

[Ender]

Again, I’d reference the CDF’s elucidation on the development of this doctrine. I am personally struck by how clear this particular segment is…

Then explain what it means: is there any situation where capital punishment can be considered legitimate? Yes or no. If it’s perfectly clear then answer the question. If a Catholic is on a jury is there a situation where he could support capital punishment? If that question can’t be answered then your claim of clarity is surely undeserved.

 

[godisgood77]

Then explain what it means: is there any situation where capital punishment can be considered legitimate? Yes or no.

No… the death penalty is inadmissible.

 

[goout]

englands123:

The Bible is very clear on the death penalty ;

Genesis 9:6 (ESV)

6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.

And the church had been equally clear for two millennia in asserting that that passage means exactly what it says. It is one thing for us to claim to understand a particular passage, but when we can cite the church’s understanding we know we are on firm ground in making a claim.

So the Church that you are relying on for clarity is…now not clear.
Ok. How does that even make sense?

If you don’t accept the Church’s authority, DON’T CITE PAST AUTHORITY. Or you contradict yourself, and that ain’t productive.

 

[goout]

Ender:

Then explain what it means: is there any situation where capital punishment can be considered legitimate? Yes or no.

No… the death penalty is inadmissible.

Which brings a question to mind that seems pretty simple, but must be elusive…
Is there a difference between
inadmissible
illegitimate
immoral
intrinsically evil

do these terms have fine distinctions between them, or do they all just mean the same thing…
Maybe I need clarity on this.

 

[Bernoulli]

do these terms have fine distinctions between them, or do they all just mean the same thing…
Maybe I need clarity on this.

Bishop Barron commented on this, when they had discussed the English translation among the US bishops. He called it “eloquent ambiguity”, which means that they did not want to speculate what Pope Francis intended with the change, so they chose the translation of “inadmissible” that preserves the kind of ambiguity that existed in the original text.

 

[goout]

goout:

do these terms have fine distinctions between them, or do they all just mean the same thing…
Maybe I need clarity on this.

Bishop Barron commented on this, when they had discussed the English translation among the US bishops. He called it “eloquent ambiguity”, which means that they did not want to speculate what Pope Francis intended with the change, so they chose the translation of “inadmissible” that preserves the kind of ambiguity that existed in the original text.

The point I am making is that the Pope did not call the death penalty intrinsically evil, or always and everywhere immoral.
The term inadmissible is more like a disciplinary change suited to current conditions.

 

[Ender]

No… the death penalty is inadmissible.

If there is no situation where capital punishment could be considered legitimate then it is intrinsically evil, which is the point I’ve been trying to get settled. You might reconsider the “clarity” of the new change given that @LeafByNiggle and @Emeraldlady, who both oppose capital punishment, if I recall correctly also both believe it is not intrinsically evil.

If you don’t accept the Church’s authority, DON’T CITE PAST AUTHORITY. Or you contradict yourself, and that ain’t productive.

Of course I accept the church’s authority. What I don’t accept is your understanding of what has been said about capital punishment. Rejecting your interpretation is not quite the same as rejecting the church. As for clarity, this issue has been muddled since the 1997 catechism came out.

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. (R. Michael Dunnigan J.D., J.C.L. 2004)

Bishop Barron commented on this, when they had discussed the English translation among the US bishops. He called it “eloquent ambiguity”, which means that they did not want to speculate what Pope Francis intended with the change, so they chose the translation of “inadmissible” that preserves the kind of ambiguity that existed in the original text.

This point was raised at the US bishop’s conference when one of them asked this very question. The bishops themselves don’t know what it means, and to consider an ambiguous teaching “eloquent” is an appalling description.

 

[Emeraldlady]

godisgood77:

No… the death penalty is inadmissible.

If there is no situation where capital punishment could be considered legitimate then it is intrinsically evil, which is the point I’ve been trying to get settled. You might reconsider the “clarity” of the new change given that @LeafByNiggle and @Emeraldlady, who both oppose capital punishment, if I recall correctly also both believe it is not intrinsically evil.

The Church has adopted the philosophical term ‘intrinsic’ evil in more recent times to make distinctions as we’ve developed greater awareness about human beings. It’s come about in tandem with the term ‘inviolability’ to explain the value of human life.

What we know absolutely is that the death penalty has always been a physical evil. All death is regarded as physical evil no matter how it’s happened. In Evangelium Vitae Pope St JPII linked the abolition of the death penalty to a growing ‘moral awareness’ regarding the inviolability of all human life. Being that it is good and normal for human beings to hate death of any kind, society has naturally evolved towards abolition. That has been happening around the world for more than a century.

Bishop Barron commented on this, when they had discussed the English translation among the US bishops. He called it “eloquent ambiguity”, which means that they did not want to speculate what Pope Francis intended with the change, so they chose the translation of “inadmissible” that preserves the kind of ambiguity that existed in the original text.

It’s only some US bishops who have a problem because capital punishment has been long loved there as an institution. There is not a single other bishop in the world who opposes abolition. They’ll get it eventually and we won’t have to tailor words of the Catechism to accommodate a small number of US Bishops.

 

[Ender]

The Church has adopted the philosophical term ‘intrinsic’ evil in more recent times to make distinctions as we’ve developed greater awareness about human beings. It’s come about in tandem with the term ‘inviolability’ to explain the value of human life.

This is the kind of jumble of terms that thrives on ambiguity and implication. You stated before that capital punishment was not intrinsically evil, therefore “inviolable” cannot be synonymous with that term, yet your comment implies they have the same effective meaning. This is why I found the bishops willingness to leave this question unresolved so…disappointing. They willingly chose to leave the misinterpretation unchallenged. When it comes to church doctrine there is no such thing as "eloquent ambiguity".

 

[Renanbr]

Death penalty is not forbidden by the fifth commandment. It can be proven by:

1. the Sacred Scriptures;

“If I have committed a crime or done anything deserving death, I do not seek to escape the death penalty; but if there is no substance to the charges they are bringing against me, then no one has the right to hand me over to them.” (Acts 25:11)

“For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.” (Romans 13:3-4)

“Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the approval of those who do good.” (1Peter 2:13-14)

1. the Sacred Tradition;

“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly.” (Inocent III, Dz 425)

The following proposition of Martin Luther was condemned by Leo X: “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” (Dz 773)

1. the theological reason.

Every part is directed to the whole; every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. Therefore, an organ which is dangerous and infectious to the other members may be lawfully excised in order to safeguard the common good of the body by he who has charge of its welfare, that is, the physician. Analogously, an individual person who is dangerous and infectious to the others, on account of some sin, may be lawfully killed in order to safeguard the common good of the community by he who has charge of its welfare, that is, the public authority (cf. ST, IIa-IIae, q. 64).

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The Church has adopted the philosophical term ‘intrinsic’ evil in more recent times to make distinctions as we’ve developed greater awareness about human beings. It’s come about in tandem with the term ‘inviolability’ to explain the value of human life.

This is the kind of jumble of terms that thrives on ambiguity and implication. You stated before that capital punishment was not intrinsically evil, therefore “inviolable” cannot be synonymous with that term, yet your comment implies they have the same effective meaning. This is why I found the bishops willingness to leave this question unresolved so…disappointing. They willingly chose to leave the misinterpretation unchallenged. When it comes to church doctrine there is no such thing as "eloquent ambiguity".

I would suggest if you are having difficulty understanding philosophical concepts, then abandon them altogether rather than anachronistically try applying them to the past when they were not yet formed fully. The Church has always regarded death as a physical evil no matter how it happens. She always regarded the punishment of death as an evil only good for its use in preserving the ‘body’ which is society. Definitely not something to rejoice over or desire. Stick with the fundamentals that the Church had back in the past and stop trying to insert concepts you can’t understand into history.

 

[Ender]

Death penalty is not forbidden by the fifth commandment. It can be proven by:

1. the Sacred Scriptures…
2. the Sacred Tradition…

This is why capital punishment has not been and cannot be declared intrinsically evil. Its use can only be declared unwise, not immoral. It is not possible to reverse what is justified in scripture.

 

[goout]

goout:

If you don’t accept the Church’s authority, DON’T CITE PAST AUTHORITY. Or you contradict yourself, and that ain’t productive.

Of course I accept the church’s authority. What I don’t accept is your understanding of what has been said about capital punishment. Rejecting your interpretation is not quite the same as rejecting the church. As for clarity, this issue has been muddled since the 1997 catechism came out.

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. (R. Michael Dunnigan J.D., J.C.L. 2004)

I don’t have “my understanding” of the Church’s position. I simply take the words at face value, in good faith. And I appreciate the difference between inadmissible and intrinsically evil, which concepts you insist on conflating, and which the Church has not said. That is a personal interpretation on your part…

You say you are not rejecting the Church’s position. Really? What are we doing here, honestly?

 

[Ender]

I appreciate the difference between inadmissible and intrinsically evil, which concepts you insist on conflating, and which the Church has not said.

If inadmissible as applied to capital punishment does not in fact mean that capital punishment is intrinsically evil then (again) the decision on when it is appropriate to use it is a prudential judgment that is the responsibility of the State to make. Therefore a Catholic on a jury could in fact decide that the crime he was judging merited that penalty.

You say you are not rejecting the Church’s position. Really? What are we doing here, honestly?

If the “Church’s position” is a prudential judgment than it does not oblige assent. To dissent from a judgment is not to dissent from church teaching.

 

[Emeraldlady]

If the “Church’s position” is a prudential judgment than it does not oblige assent. To dissent from a judgment is not to dissent from church teaching.

But why would any Catholic want to dissent from this teaching?

 

[Sftyvlv1]

Sooooooooooooooooooooo, is it a sin or not ?
Yes or no will suffice.