Church's teaching on Capital Punishment to change?

[KFISH]

I keep hearing in recent months that the Vatican is reconsidering the wording in the Catechism on capital punishment. I understand that the CCC currently states that the traditional teachings of the Church do not exclude the death penalty as recourse for punishment, and that the inclusion of Pope JPII’s statement from Evangelium Vitae on urging this to be rare if not nonexistent is his own prudential judgement. Hence, practicing Catholics can legitimately be on either side of this matter. So, what exactly is changing? Or are people just speculating?

 

[GEddie]

If nothing has come from the Vatican on this issue, it can only be speculation.

If they have said anything, it will be on .va

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ender]

I understand that the CCC currently states that the traditional teachings of the Church do not exclude the death penalty as recourse for punishment, and that the inclusion of Pope JPII’s statement from Evangelium Vitae on urging this to be rare if not nonexistent is his own prudential judgement.

It would be a huge help if the Vatican would clear up this point once and for all, and a lot of people recognize the rather muddled condition of the Church’s position on capital punishment. It is long overdue for clarification.

*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.)

Hence, practicing Catholics can legitimately be on either side of this matter. So, what exactly is changing? Or are people just speculating?

There is a great deal of debate as to whether in fact Catholics may be on either side of the matter. Hopefully what (if anything) will be forthcoming will not be a change but a clear, unambiguous explanation.

Ender

 

[Julia_Mae]

There is a great deal of debate as to whether in fact Catholics may be on either side of the matter. Hopefully what (if anything) will be forthcoming will not be a change but a clear, unambiguous explanation.

Ender

Maybe there is no “clear, unambiguous explanation” that would fit your idea of what that is. Do you think it’s possible that the explanation is only clear to people who understand the intent and would by necessity be muddy to those who require a rule in place for every possible circumstance?

Sometimes, the Church leaves things for us to decide for ourselves. We are supposed to be able to do that, you know. Here’s the explanation: do not kill people if you can avoid it.

That’s it. When you have the opportunity to kill someone, keep this in mind.

What’s really scary, is anyone, much less some Bishop, thinking it’s the job of the Church to “tell us what to believe.” It’s the job of the Church to deliver the Deposit of Faith to the next generation. It’s our job to figure out how best to show forth the image of Christ to the world.

And, BTW, one of the reasons the Vatican is often imprecise is in case some future Pope decides to make an infallible statement that contradicts some past pronouncement. Popes have learned to give each other a lot of leeway.

It seems to me, that instead of always criticizing the Church for what we think they should be doing, we just need to mind our own soul’s business. Because the Church can’t do that for us.

 

[Ender]

Maybe there is no “clear, unambiguous explanation” that would fit your idea of what that is.

My idea of a clear, unambiguous explanation is one that is … clear and unambiguous. Something like this for example:

*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.” *(Catechism of 1992)

Do you think it’s possible that the explanation is only clear to people who understand the intent and would by necessity be muddy to those who require a rule in place for every possible circumstance?

No.

Sometimes, the Church leaves things for us to decide for ourselves. We are supposed to be able to do that, you know. Here’s the explanation: do not kill people if you can avoid it.

That may be your explanation but it isn’t the one the Church provides. Her’s is more complete:

*“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pius X)

And, BTW, one of the reasons the Vatican is often imprecise is in case some future Pope decides to make an infallible statement that contradicts some past pronouncement. Popes have learned to give each other a lot of leeway.

No, this is incorrect. The Church’s doctrines aren’t hedged like that, she really doesn’t take the position that *“We’d better not be precise because we might be wrong and have to change our position in the future.”
*
Ender

 

[TypesAndShadows]

I actually don’t understand what people find unclear about the Catechism on Capital Punishment. I think it is both clear and sensible. The long and short is that, for a country like America, capital punishment is unjustified and wrong in just about every possible situation, because the state is capable of containing such people indefinitely and securely. If you lived in somewhere without the ability to so confine people, then there would be no moral problem with the state (provided they could establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt) executing a murderer. This is what the Catechism says.

The gymnastics I’ve seen certain (always American) Catholics go through to claim that some part of the Catechism doesn’t have to be believed because it doesn’t conform to conservative American values, is pretty shocking to me. If someone was claiming that they didn’t have to agree with part of the section on contraception, and so could use condoms because they didn’t really feel ready for another child, they would be rightly condemned for warping the Church’s teaching to match their preference. If you claim that part of the Catechism on capital punishment can be ignored, and so you can campaign for the death penalty or seek to convince others that your American state needs the death penalty for some murderer, you are playing the same game.

 

[Ender]

I actually don’t understand what people find unclear about the Catechism on Capital Punishment. I think it is both clear and sensible. The long and short is that, for a country like America, capital punishment is unjustified and wrong in just about every possible situation, because the state is capable of containing such people indefinitely and securely.

I suppose if the only comment the Church had ever made on this subject was found in CCC 2267 this might be a reasonable conclusion. Given that the Church has taught on this subject going back to the Early Fathers, however, it turns out that the subject is not as simple as you imagine.

First of all, the assessment that America or any other country has a penal system that can *“effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it” *has to be acknowledged to be a prudential judgment. Cardinal Dulles addressed this point in this specific context when he stated:*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. *(Dulles and his Critics: An Exchange on Capital Punishment, 2001)
Second, the assertion made in 2267 that the traditional teaching of the Church allowed capital punishment “when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.” is wrong as a matter of fact. The Church had no such restriction.*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery, S.J.)
Finally, the implication that capital punishment is an affront to the *“dignity of the human person” *challenges and repudiates two millennia of Church teaching that recognized the justness of the death penalty as punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. If capital punishment is an affront to human dignity today then it was no less an affront during the centuries when the Church recognized and approved its use.

The gymnastics I’ve seen certain (always American) Catholics go through to claim that some part of the Catechism doesn’t have to be believed because it doesn’t conform to conservative American values, is pretty shocking to me.

I would find it shocking if someone actually came up with an argument to refute those “gymnastics”.

If you claim that part of the Catechism on capital punishment can be ignored, and so you can campaign for the death penalty or seek to convince others that your American state needs the death penalty for some murderer, you are playing the same game.

Not exactly given that Cardinal Dulles explicitly, and the USCCB and Cardinal Ratzinger implicitly, recognized 2267 as prudential opinion … and we know that prudential opinions do not require our assent.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

I actually don’t understand what people find unclear about the Catechism on Capital Punishment. .

Why don’t you read Cardinal Dulles article on Capital Punishment

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0461.html

Pope John Paul II elevated then Fr. Dulles to the College of Cardinals, not because he was the archbishop of a large city, but because Pope John Paul II valued his skill as a theologian.

Do your views match that of Cardinal Dulles?

I would say that I am 100% on board with his explanation of the Church’s teaching.

 

[TypesAndShadows]

Ah, so you are not in fact saying that the Catechism is unclear and needs to be clarified, but that you believe a Cardinal has said things which differ from the Catechism, and so the Catechism should be changed to conform with what he said?

You also say

Finally, the implication that capital punishment is an affront to the “dignity of the human person” challenges and repudiates two millennia of Church teaching that recognized the justness of the death penalty as punishment for (at least) the crime of murder. If capital punishment is an affront to human dignity today then it was no less an affront during the centuries when the Church recognized and approved its use.

Which seems to have fundamentally misunderstood what the Catechism says. It does not say that the death penalty is fundamentally immoral and an affront to human dignity (which would, as you say, be problematic). It says that there is no justification for it in states which have a viable alternative, such as secure life imprisonment, and hence it becomes immoral and an affront to human dignity in those cases. Just as killing someone in the course of defending your life from them is not generally a sin, but if you are able to restrain them securely and then choose to kill them unnecessarily, that is a grave sin. When secure imprisonment in this way was not possible, there was no sin or affront to dignity in using the death penalty.

 

[Brendan]

Ah, so you are not in fact saying that the Catechism is unclear and needs to be clarified, but that you believe a Cardinal has said things which differ from the Catechism, and so the Catechism should be changed to conform with what he said?.

Nope, I don’t think that anyone said that Cardinal Dulles’s article differed from what was in the Catechism.

In fact, the main thrust of the Cardinal’s article was to demonstrate the error of those who believe that the Catechism (or the Church) somehow banned Capital Punishment.

I fully support the Catechism, which, in effect, states that Governments can resort to the use of Capital Punishment, but should only do so when it is determined that there are no other effective ways of safe guarding society. Such occurrences, in modern times, are rare, if not almost nonexistent

Do you believe that the Catechism says anything different? You don’t seem to, as I agree with your assement of 2267

Which seems to have fundamentally misunderstood what the Catechism says. It does not say that the death penalty is fundamentally immoral and an affront to human dignity (which would, as you say, be problematic). It says that there is no justification for it in states which have a viable alternative, such as secure life imprisonment, and hence it becomes immoral and an affront to human dignity in those cases. Just as killing someone in the course of defending your life from them is not generally a sin, but if you are able to restrain them securely and then choose to kill them unnecessarily, that is a grave sin. When secure imprisonment in this way was not possible, there was no sin or affront to dignity in using the death penalty.

So what is your issue? I don’t think that anyone here made any claims to the contrary.

 

[Ender]

Ah, so you are not in fact saying that the Catechism is unclear and needs to be clarified, but that you believe a Cardinal has said things which differ from the Catechism, and so the Catechism should be changed to conform with what he said?

What is assuredly unclear is whether the statements in 2267 represent prudential judgment or doctrine. It is one thing to disagree about whether our prison system actually has the ability to effectively safeguard the innocent and quite another to disagree about whether that fact should determine the use of capital punishment.

It says that there is no justification for it in states which have a viable alternative, such as secure life imprisonment, and hence it becomes immoral and an affront to human dignity in those cases.

If that is what it says then that is a significant change from the previous 2000 years of Church teaching which in fact never raised the issue. The justification for capital punishment was never that it was needed for protection but that it was a just punishment for certain crimes.

When secure imprisonment in this way was not possible, there was no sin or affront to dignity in using the death penalty.

This is another unsupportable assumption since secure imprisonment has been practiced at least since the Romans sent prisoners to the mines and the galleys. Secure imprisonment is not only not a modern invention but a good argument can be made that it was a good bit more secure in the past than it is now.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I fully support the Catechism, which, in effect, states that Governments can resort to the use of Capital Punishment, but should only do so when it is determined that there are no other effective ways of safe guarding society. Such occurrences, in modern times, are rare, if not almost nonexistent

So what is your issue? I don’t think that anyone here made any claims to the contrary.

Well, I disagree with the statement that capital punishment should be used only when necessary to protect society. That is not just a fundamental change to what the Church taught in the past but it does not accord with what she teaches today … despite it being exactly what is said in 2267.

It needs to be recognized that protection is only a secondary objective of punishment. The primary objective is retribution (2266) and the State has a positive obligation to levy a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime, and the needs of protection are no part whatever in determining what constitutes a just punishment. It is justice, not protection, that determines what punishment should be applied. This is what the Church teaches today … despite what 2267 says.

Beyond this, the Church has always based her position on capital punishment on Gen 9:6 which - again - is about what is just, not what protects. The problem with 2267 is that - if it was doctrine - it would conflict with other doctrine, which I’m sure we all recognize cannot be the case. If it is a recommendation, however, there is no conflict since the Church has always taught that other considerations can change what would otherwise be normal practice. 2267 makes sense as a prudential choice. It makes no sense at all as doctrine.

Ender

 

[sw85]

I actually don’t understand what people find unclear about the Catechism on Capital Punishment. I think it is both clear and sensible. The long and short is that, for a country like America, capital punishment is unjustified and wrong in just about every possible situation, because the state is capable of containing such people indefinitely and securely. If you lived in somewhere without the ability to so confine people, then there would be no moral problem with the state (provided they could establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt) executing a murderer. This is what the Catechism says.

For my own struggles on the topic, see my thread in moral theology here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=666813.

In short, the Church’s traditional teachings are NOT qualified with respect to technological availability of alternative punishments. The Church’s traditional teaching seems to be that the state may legitimately make recourse to the death penalty as a simple matter of justice, not merely as a means of protecting the polity or deterring other criminals.

Obviously the demands of justice are unchanging, so if it was legitimate to execute certain classes of criminals in the mid-16th century, it is still so today.

 

[sw85]

Also, given that the Church’s present teachings on the death penalty are a major sticking point with the SSPX, it seems likely that any reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome may entail a clarification of this teaching.

It’s also worth noting that while the principles expressed in the Catechism are authoritative and binding, I’m fairly sure the manner of their expression is not necessarily infallible, and so revisions for clarity’s sake do not necessarily entail a change in the Church’s teachings.

 

[Ender]

Also, given that the Church’s present teachings on the death penalty are a major sticking point with the SSPX, it seems likely that any reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome may entail a clarification of this teaching.

It is interesting to note that when the Wallensians broke from the Church at the end of the 12th century, capital punishment was an issue then as well. Before being accepted back in to the Church, Innocent III required the Wallensians to agree to a document that included this reaffirmation of the Church’s position on capital punishment:

“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”

If differing positions on the death penalty is one of the issues separating the SSPXers from the Church it would be more than a little interesting to see how that issue is resolved.

It’s also worth noting that while the principles expressed in the Catechism are authoritative and binding, I’m fairly sure the manner of their expression is not necessarily infallible, and so revisions for clarity’s sake do not necessarily entail a change in the Church’s teachings.

It is not a question of whether everything in the Catechism is infallibly taught - we know that’s not the case. The question is whether it contains prudential opinion, which is neither authoritative nor binding.

Ender

 

[sw85]

It is interesting to note that when the Wallensians broke from the Church at the end of the 12th century, capital punishment was an issue then as well. Before being accepted back in to the Church, Innocent III required the Wallensians to agree to a document that included this reaffirmation of the Church’s position on capital punishment:

“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”

If differing positions on the death penalty is one of the issues separating the SSPXers from the Church it would be more than a little interesting to see how that issue is resolved.
It is not a question of whether everything in the Catechism is infallibly taught - we know that’s not the case. The question is whether it contains prudential opinion, which is neither authoritative nor binding.

Ender

Your posts in this thread have been tremendously helpful to me. This is something about which I was deeply conflicted. Thanks for your insights.

 

[mitex]

Can’t they just write a new Catechism?

 

[Ender]

Your posts in this thread have been tremendously helpful to me. This is something about which I was deeply conflicted. Thanks for your insights.

The more you read about what the Church has taught on this issue the more difficult it will be to accept 2267 as doctrine as it diverges so greatly from the traditional teaching. This subject cannot be addressed simply by citing that one section of the Catechism as if it was all that needed to be considered.

Mitex:

Can’t they just write a new Catechism?

It really is just this one section that has caused so much controversy but it clearly needs to be readdressed to resolve the conflicts it has created.

Ender

 

[Julia_Mae]

The more you read about what the Church has taught on this issue the more difficult it will be to accept 2267 as doctrine as it diverges so greatly from the traditional teaching. This subject cannot be addressed simply by citing that one section of the Catechism as if it was all that needed to be considered.
It really is just this one section that has caused so much controversy but it clearly needs to be readdressed to resolve the conflicts it has created.

Ender

So you are saying the Magesterium is wrong, the Vatican is wrong, then Cardinal Ratzinger was wrong, and it should say… what, exactly?

**2267 **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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

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.”

 

[sw85]

So you are saying the Magesterium is wrong, the Vatican is wrong, then Cardinal Ratzinger was wrong, and it should say… what, exactly?

**2267 **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.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

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.”

He is saying CCC 2267 represents a prudential judgment and not a doctrinal teaching, and that Catholics are required to endorse doctrine but not prudential judgments.