Death Penalty and where it gets weird

[LongingSoul]

Punishment has four objectives:*The purposes of criminal punishment are rather unanimously delineated in the Catholic tradition. Punishment is held to have a variety of ends that may conveniently be reduced to the following four: rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. *(Cardinal Dulles)

With regard to retribution, Card. Dulles then stresses the following…

"Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.

The death penalty, we may conclude, has different values in relation to each of the four ends of punishment. It does not rehabilitate the criminal but may be an occasion for bringing about salutary repentance. It is an effective but rarely, if ever, a necessary means of defending society against the criminal. Whether it serves to deter others from similar crimes is a disputed question, difficult to settle. Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt. "

The catechism identifies which objective is primary:The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. (CCC 2266)

An interesting point for those who want to google this fancy bit of footwork… When all the pro-death penalty sites quote the Catechism, they pretty much all change the wording of 2266 to 'the primary scope of the penalty’, as though this paragraph specifically deals with the death penalty, when in the official wording it is addressing ‘the primary scope of punishment’ in general, following on from that with the reference to the death penalty. So the primary scope, aim or as the 1992 version of the Catechism says, the primary effect of punishment… is redressing the disorder caused by the offense. In that 1992 version this is immediately followed by… “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

Redressing the disorder is the primary scope, aim or effect of punishment, but the purpose of the death penalty is to protect the public if non lethal punishments aren’t sufficient for that end.

The question is: which of the four objectives Dulles identified is the one referred to by “redress the disorder caused by the offense”? It surely cannot be defense or deterrence since they are about preventing future offenses, nor can it be rehabilitation since, while it may redress the disorder in the individual, it does nothing to redress the disorder caused by his crime. That pretty much leaves retribution as the primary objective of punishment. Some may be uncomfortable with that but it is what the church teaches.*The third justifying purpose for punishment is **retribution ***or the restoration of the order of justice which has been violated by the action of the criminal. We grant that the need for retribution does indeed justify punishment (USCCB)

The USCCB says the third justifying purpose of punishment. If is the primary justifying purpose of punishment. Surely it would state that here?

You are obviously right in saying that the death penalty is a penalty, but the primary purpose of punishment is not protection, rather it is justice.

Clearly the overall aim of punishment is justice. That is a given. The death penalty though is limited to being a last resort to protect and safeguard the community and within that service, it serves justice.

"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 more in conformity with 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 definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an abolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 56)

These are the instructions from our Church teachers. Our 2000 year old Institution of Christs Church. The doctrinal teaching clearly passed onto the faithful through the medium of the Catechism which presents to us "an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition."

 

[Ender]

With regard to retribution, Card. Dulles then stresses the following…

One point at a time. I cited Dulles to identify the four objectives of punishment.

“Its retributive value is impaired by lack of clarity about the role of the State. In general, then, capital punishment has some limited value but its necessity is open to doubt.” (Dulles)

Yes, and this is a valid prudential reason to oppose the use of capital punishment in modern states which have lost that clarity of purpose. I have frequently recognized that practical objections are valid reasons to oppose its use. This, however, has nothing to do with moral objections such as a concern that it may violate man’s dignity.

An interesting point for those who want to google this fancy bit of footwork… When all the pro-death penalty sites quote the Catechism, they pretty much all change the wording of 2266 to 'the primary scope of the penalty’, as though this paragraph specifically deals with the death penalty, when in the official wording it is addressing ‘the primary scope of punishment’ in general, following on from that with the reference to the death penalty.

Why don’t you just look things up before you charge me with deceit? The sentence reads exactly as I cited it, and it does say “penalty” as opposed to “punishment”, not that there is any difference between the two.the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
The only change I made was to capitalize the first word, which was incorrectly presented in lower case.

So the primary scope, aim or as the 1992 version of the Catechism says, the primary effect of punishment… is redressing the disorder caused by the offense.

Well, if we’re referring to the 1992 version of the catechism I’ll point out that it gives a different description of the traditional teaching of the church than the 1997 version in that it nowhere claims that tradition limited capital punishment to where it was needed for defense.

Redressing the disorder is the primary scope, aim or effect of punishment, but the purpose of the death penalty is to protect the public if non lethal punishments aren’t sufficient for that end.

Capital punishment is, as **adrift **pointed out, a punishment, and everything the church has said about punishment applies to it equally with every other form of punishment. The primary purpose of capital punishment is exactly the same as for all other punishments: it is retributive justice.

The USCCB says the third justifying purpose of punishment. If is the primary justifying purpose of punishment. Surely it would state that here?

The USCCB was simply listing the purposes; it did not order them. As a matter of fact they only identified three objectives: rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution; they didn’t even mention defense so you probably don’t want to push too hard on this point.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Why don’t you just look things up before you charge me with deceit? The sentence reads exactly as I cited it, and it does say “penalty” as opposed to “punishment”, not that there is any difference between the two.the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
The only change I made was to capitalize the first word, which was incorrectly presented in lower case.

I did look it up both the online official English version carried on the Vatican site and my personal copies of the first 1994 edition and the first 1997 edition.

The reason you had to correct a mistake in the text is because it is not an official text. What you have linked to is an unofficial 1993 submission of the French translation which was not approved by the Vatican. You can gleen that firstly from the text errors and secondly from the html pathway. Several submissions of the translation were rejected by the Vatican before the official translation was finally published in mid 1994.

ewtn.com/library/CATECHSM/CCHISM.HTM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church

None of the official copies I own or have seen attribute 2266 specifically to Capital Punishment under that separate heading after Legitimate Defense. All address recourse to the death penalty specifically in 2267.

1992 version…“2267. If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

1997 version…*"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 more in conformity with 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 definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself — the cases in which the execution of the offender is an abolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” (John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, 56)"*

Even your old Baltimore Catechism puts limits on the justifiable use of the death penalty indicating that while the law books may allow recoursse to it, it must always be in service to the common good to be justified…

*"Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?

A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

1. In self-defense, when we are unjustly attacked and have no other means of saving our own lives;
2. In a just war, when the safety or rights of the nation require it;
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal*, fairly tried and found guilty of a crime punishable by death **when **the preservation of law and order and the good of the community require such execution."

The limitation is far from new.

So why would you link to an unofficial, unapproved version of the first English translations? One that didn’t see the light of day?

So the primary scope, aim or as the 1992 version of the Catechism says, the primary effect of punishment… is redressing the disorder caused by the offense.

Well, if we’re referring to the 1992 version of the catechism I’ll point out that it gives a different description of the traditional teaching of the church than the 1997 version in that it nowhere claims that tradition limited capital punishment to where it was needed for defense.

That’s rubbish. That is exactly what it does…

2267.* If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person***.

 

[LongingSoul]

Well, if we’re referring to the 1992 version of the catechism I’ll point out that it gives a different description of the traditional teaching of the church than the 1997 version in that it nowhere claims that tradition limited capital punishment to where it was needed for defense.

I might add that it is also perfectly in line with Aquinas understanding of the death penalty…

"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. "

newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

 

[adrift]

None of the official copies I own or have seen attribute 2266 specifically to Capital Punishment under that separate heading after Legitimate Defense. All address recourse to the death penalty specifically in 2267.

Did you miss the heading emphasis mine

Capital Punishment

2266 The State’s effort to contain the spread of behaviors injurious to human rights and the fundamental rules of civil coexistence corresponds to the requirement of watching over the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime. the primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.67

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

Both 2266 and 2267 come under the heading Capital Punishment.

The reason you had to correct a mistake in the text is because it is not an official text

The link was to the Vatican web site and it does have that error. The html pathway is the Vatican’s website vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM.

 

[Ender]

I did look it up both the online official English version carried on the Vatican site and my personal copies of the first 1994 edition and the first 1997 edition.

You accused me of doctoring the text. If you go to the Vatican website and search on “catechism of the catholic church” (English) you will be taken to the document I cited.

The reason you had to correct a mistake in the text is because it is not an official text. What you have linked to is an unofficial 1993 submission of the French translation which was not approved by the Vatican.

Really? I wonder why the Vatican takes us to an unofficial version, especially one with a 2003 copyright date.

None of the official copies I own or have seen attribute 2266 specifically to Capital Punishment under that separate heading after Legitimate Defense. All address recourse to the death penalty specifically in 2267.

You need to focus better on the issue in question. You have denied that retribution is the primary objective of punishment; I was using 2266 to point out your error. I wasn’t discussing capital punishment in particular but punishment in general.

Even your old Baltimore Catechism puts limits on the justifiable use of the death penalty indicating that while the law books may allow recoursse to it, it must always be in service to the common good to be justified.

Limited to the common good yes, but not limited to defense. As I’ve pointed out before, at the top of the list of common goods is justice.

The limitation is far from new.

Tying capital punishment to the common good is not new but tying it directly to the necessity for defense is. You might ask yourself if there is precedence for such a linkage why wasn’t it cited? Instead, 2267 justifies its position by citing EV 56 and EV 56 justifies its position by citing 2267.

So why would you link to an unofficial, unapproved version of the first English translations? One that didn’t see the light of day?

As I said, it’s the first option presented by the Vatican website, and therefore seems a bit more official than you claim.

That’s rubbish. That is exactly what it does…

No, once again you’ve not read carefully enough. The description of the traditional teaching is given by the 1992 version in 2266. What you cited was 2267 - which, whatever else you may think it is, is not part of the description of that teaching.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I might add that it is also perfectly in line with Aquinas understanding of the death penalty…

No, you’ve put your own spin on what Aquinas said. I’ll point out again that, if the new 2267 is so perfectly in line with Aquinas (or anyone else), it is inexplicable why such a citation was not made in the document. Instead, the best 2267 could do was to cite EV 56, and I think the reason is obvious: there is nothing in the traditional teaching of the church that supports its new position.

"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. "

It seems what Aquinas is referring to here are the roles of soldiers and police, who alone are authorized to intentionally kill in defense of the public. The individual, even in self defense, is not allowed to kill intentionally. It seems you have again provided a reference that doesn’t support your position. Aquinas is not saying that capital punishment is restricted to the need for defense.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul

What I’m suggesting, is that this is not a final and approved copy of the English translation of the Catechism. The document is dated 1993 and the first approved official English translation of the Catechism was not published until June 1994. Whatever the nature of this document that’s been linked to which you will only ever see linked to by pro death penalty advocates, it does not reflect the official version of the Catechism. I have a copy of the first published Catechism from 1994 which begins with the text of Pope John Pauls Apostolic letter which all official English translations include. The 1997 versions also include the Apostolic letter by which it is approved and promelgated.

I have never seen in any official version of the Catechism… where the heading ‘Capital Punishment’ sits directly above 2266 and 2267 in the way that it is shown in this link. I have also not seen a version that in 2266 states “the primary scope of the penalty,” which leads the reader who would assume that 2266 refers specifically to Capital Punishment since it is headed directly above, to believe that ‘the penalty’ is referring to capital punishment itself.

My original 1994 English copy does not have a heading of Capital Punishment above 2266 and states “The primary effect of punishment…” and punishment is italicised in my hard copy to stress the point that this is addressing punishment in general… not the death penalty itself.

A penalty is of a different nature to punishment in general. Punishment is the principle. The penalty is a tool… the servant of the principle. The primary scope of medicine is the communities health but the purpose of the doctor or of a specific treatment is to mend the injured and treat disease. They act in defense of health.

It is only dictators and tyrants and those who mistake themselves as having divine rights that think they are arbiters of the principle. The reality is that God is always the arbiter of the principle. We are the servants and the tools of that principle and public order and safety ie the common good is our primary purpose in serving the principle.

I’ll be happy to concede that perhaps the Americans have an original official unique translation of this section of the CCC that does include the specific heading ‘Capital Punishment’ and does attribute primary scope to a penalty… if you can direct me to that version. Otherwise, I don’t accept that link as the official Vatican English translation. I accept this one.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

 

[adrift]

I’ll be happy to concede that perhaps the Americans have an original official unique translation of this section of the CCC that does include the specific heading ‘Capital Punishment’ and does attribute primary scope to a penalty… if you can direct me to that version. Otherwise, I don’t accept that link as the official Vatican English translation. I accept this one.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

Very interesting
Please note the link your were given

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM
Then Yours
www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

BOTH are to the Vatican website. You said you checked the url obviously you did not.
I bookmarked my link about six months ago. In that time it has been changed. Now the heading is legitimate defense without the subheading of Capital Punishment.

2263-2267 all are under that heading and therefore all reflect the teachings of legitimate defense. You cannot divorce 2266 from the context and say it has nothing to do with 2267 they are all a whole starting at :
I. Respect for Human Life
Ending
2330 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God” (Mt 5:9).

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul

I know they both come from the Vatican website, but I’m wondering why Ender links to a document that is dated 1993, prior to the official publication of the English translation which happened in 1994… and has text errors, different wording in 2266 and a specific heading of ‘Capital Punishment’ to isolate 2266 and 2267 from the section that all the official texts encompass in the heading ‘Legitimate Defense’ and also lacks the official Apostolic letters of approval and promelgation?

I’ve posted a link from EWTN discussing the numerous texts submitted by the American Church for approval of a first English translation of the original French language Catechism promelgated in 1992, that were rejected. I also have a copy of the first edition of the English translation from June 1994 that does not have this separate heading of ‘Capital Punishment’ separated from the ‘Legitimate Defense’ section and doesn’t state that the ‘primary purpose of **the penalty **is…’ but has italicised *punishment *to stress some kind of point.

So I don’t believe what you are saying as far as the Church only eliminating the ‘Capital Punishment’ heading within the last 6 months. I don’t believe it ever existed. I believe the text that is submitted and linked to by the pro death penalty crowd, is not an officially approved text, but a submission from an American source who are pro-death penalty.

I believe as per my original 1994 English translation, that the 2263 to 2267 have ***always ***been under the heading ‘Legitimate Defense’ and never separated to reflect that 2266 and 2267 are not part of the legitimate defense reasoning but specifically part of a ‘divine right’ justification under the heading of ‘Capital Punishment’.

I’d be happy to concede that this is an American culturally specific teaching which does not include the rest of the world if you pointed me to an officially approved text though.

 

[Ender]

I know they both come from the Vatican website, but I’m wondering why Ender links to a document that is dated 1993, prior to the official publication of the English translation which happened in 1994… and has text errors, different wording in 2266 and a specific heading of ‘Capital Punishment’ to isolate 2266 and 2267 from the section that all the official texts encompass in the heading ‘Legitimate Defense’ and also lacks the official Apostolic letters of approval and promelgation?

Did you not read my comment where I explained that the document I linked to is the first one the Vatican search function provides under the search “catechism of the catholic church”? Perhaps had you read it you might have noticed that I also stated that the copyright on that document is 2003.

I also have a copy of the first edition of the English translation from June 1994 that does not have this separate heading of ‘Capital Punishment’ separated from the ‘Legitimate Defense’ section and doesn’t state that the ‘primary purpose of **the penalty **is…’ but has italicised *punishment *to stress some kind of point.

The 2003 version includes 2263-2265 under the heading Legitimate Defense and puts 2266 and 2267 under the heading *Capital Punishment.
*

So I don’t believe what you are saying as far as the Church only eliminating the ‘Capital Punishment’ heading within the last 6 months. I don’t believe it ever existed. I believe the text that is submitted and linked to by the pro death penalty crowd, is not an officially approved text, but a submission from an American source who are pro-death penalty.

You’re right in observing that the church did not eliminate that heading in the last 6 months: she has not eliminated it at all. In fact all you have to do is go to the Vatican web site, do the search, and go to the document provided to find it yourself.

I believe as per my original 1994 English translation, that the 2263 to 2267 have ***always ***been under the heading ‘Legitimate Defense’ and never separated to reflect that 2266 and 2267 are not part of the legitimate defense reasoning but specifically part of a ‘divine right’ justification under the heading of ‘Capital Punishment’.

On what ground do you reject the text of the 2003 version?

Ender

 

[adrift]

I know they both come from the Vatican website, but I’m wondering why Ender links to a document that is dated 1993, prior to the official publication of the English translation which happened in 1994… and has text errors, different wording in 2266 and a specific heading of ‘Capital Punishment’ to isolate 2266 and 2267 from the section that all the official texts encompass in the heading ‘Legitimate Defense’ and also lacks the official Apostolic letters of approval and promelgation?

I have been doing some searching it has been fascinating and illuminating why there were changes made. After what I have read, I would not consider the official publication to be in 1994. When that was published, it was with the caveat “subject to revision according to the Latin typical edition (editio typica) when it is published.”[7] That was published on August 15, 1997 which than included the text on the death penalty we have now. As a result, a second edition was published. I do not have access to my copy at the moment but I am curious to see if it has the sub topic or if it reflects what you have linked.

I’ve posted a link from EWTN discussing the numerous texts submitted by the American Church for approval of a first English translation of the original French language Catechism promelgated in 1992, that were rejected. I also have a copy of the first edition of the English translation from June 1994 that does not have this separate heading of ‘Capital Punishment’ separated from the ‘Legitimate Defense’ section and doesn’t state that the ‘primary purpose of **the penalty **is…’ but has italicised *punishment *to stress some kind of point.

The link from EWTN was written before the English translation was approved. They site all sorts of errors which are not present in the link that I have given. I don’t see the relevance:shrug:

So I don’t believe what you are saying as far as the Church only eliminating the ‘Capital Punishment’ heading within the last 6 months. I don’t believe it ever existed. I believe the text that is submitted and linked to by the pro death penalty crowd, is not an officially approved text, but a submission from an American source who are pro-death penalty.

You don’t make sense here. On one hand you admit that it is published on the Vatican website and on the other saying that it is from the pro-death side. The Vatican is the one who published it on their website and they have not removed it.

I believe as per my original 1994 English translation, that the 2263 to 2267 have ***always ***been under the heading ‘Legitimate Defense’ and never separated to reflect that 2266 and 2267 are not part of the legitimate defense reasoning but specifically part of a ‘divine right’ justification under the heading of ‘Capital Punishment’.

The Vatican website either made a mistake one they have not corrected or you are mistaken.

I’d be happy to concede that this is an American culturally specific teaching which does not include the rest of the world if you pointed me to an officially approved text though.

Vatican website cannot be trusted to publish an approved text?

Did you not read my comment where I explained that the document I linked to is the first one the Vatican search function provides under the search “catechism of the catholic church”? Perhaps had you read it you might have noticed that I also stated that the copyright on that document is 2003.
The 2003 version includes 2263-2265 under the heading Legitimate Defense and puts 2266 and 2267 under the heading *Capital Punishment.
*You’re right in observing that the church did not eliminate that heading in the last 6 months: she has not eliminated it at all. In fact all you have to do is go to the Vatican web site, do the search, and go to the document provided to find it yourself.
On what ground do you reject the text of the 2003 version?

Ender

Ender I did go to the Vatican website and searched for the catechism the one that it goes to is the one LS linked to. Last fall I bought a computer and did a search to put the catechism in my favorites. At that time, the Vatican search gave me the one you and I both have linked to but that is no longer true. The link still takes me to the version that has a sub-title of Capitol Punishment but the Vatican search take me to one that does not.
I find it strange that the closest mention of the death penalty in brief section says

2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

T

 

[Ender]

Ender I did go to the Vatican website and searched for the catechism the one that it goes to is the one LS linked to. Last fall I bought a computer and did a search to put the catechism in my favorites. At that time, the Vatican search gave me the one you and I both have linked to but that is no longer true. The link still takes me to the version that has a sub-title of Capitol Punishment but the Vatican search take me to one that does not.

I don’t know what to say. I go to the Vatican home page, select the SEARCH option and enter catechism of the catholic church in the search field (sorted by date). The first item listed (and the list seems to change every other time I do this) is this one: of the Catechism****Catholic Church
The Holy See, Search. Archive Documents of the II Vatican Council Sacred Scripture Archive. CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. …
www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm - 6k - Copia cache
When I link to the document, a field comes up for me to choose the language; when I select English, I am taken to this document:vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
The copyright date on that document is 2003 and the layout of the section on the Fifth Commandment is this:
I. Respect for Human Life
The witness of sacred history (2259-2262)
Legitimate Defense (2263-2265)
Capital Punishment (2266-2267)
Intentional Homicide (2268-2269)
…

Scroll to the bottom of the Table of Contents. The very last thing given there is the copyright date. The document LS has been using is the old one and it is superseded by the one linked to above.

Ender

 

[adrift]

I don’t know what to say.

I again did a search and I am not getting the same results as I did yesterday:shrug: It is a complete mystery to me.

I do have a copy of the 1992 edition and it is not in it. I won’t be able to see the second edition until the end of the week. I am wondering if it was added to the on line edition? Do you have a hard copy of the second edition?

 

[Ender]

Do you have a hard copy of the second edition?

Yes. It was copyright in 1997 and in that version the Legitimate Defense part includes sections 2263-2267 and there is no sub-heading for Capital Punishment. I don’t use that book any longer since a newer version (the 2003 copy) is available on line. Everything that LS said about which version I was using was pure speculation and none of it was accurate

Are you doing your search from the Vatican web site? If you use Google you’ll get different results. On the Vatican home page is a SEARCH option; click on it and enter the search argument in the window it provides. I have to say I am unimpressed with the Vatican web site; it really is difficult to navigate and some of the data still appears in Italian.

Ender

 

[adrift]

Are you doing your search from the Vatican web site? If you use Google you’ll get different results. On the Vatican home page is a SEARCH option; click on it and enter the search argument in the window it provides. I have to say I am unimpressed with the Vatican web site; it really is difficult to navigate and some of the data still appears in Italian.

Ender

Yes I went to the Vatican website. Strange I first clicked on library and I failed to notice the Catechism link and used the search that search brought up LS link. The last time repeating the same process it brought up your link and I no longer could I find LS link. I agree that the website is difficult to negotiate. They have changed things over the years and not for the better. As can be expected, there are multiple languages. Some items are not translated into English. BTW I also checked the Latin that was on the Vatican site as that I believe would be the official text. It did not have the subheading. I also checked the United State Conference of Catholic Bishops web site for their rendition it also does not have the sub-heading. I don’t really think it matters to say that article 2266 doesn’t pertain to 2267 is unjustified. It is curious as to why the Vatican’s on line Catechism has it.

Everything that LS said about which version I was using was pure speculation and none of it was accurate

As we have both pointed out and she should have realized it if she had checked out the links. The link has the revised 2267 which clearly shows it is not the French error rendition.

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t know what to say. I go to the Vatican home page, select the SEARCH option and enter catechism of the catholic church in the search field (sorted by date). The first item listed (and the list seems to change every other time I do this) is this one:The Holy See - Archive - Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Holy See, Search. Archive Documents of the II Vatican Council Sacred Scripture Archive. CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. …
www.vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm - 6k - Copia cache
When I link to the document, a field comes up for me to choose the language; when I select English, I am taken to this document:vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
The copyright date on that document is 2003 and the layout of the section on the Fifth Commandment is this:
I. Respect for Human Life
The witness of sacred history (2259-2262)
Legitimate Defense (2263-2265)
Capital Punishment (2266-2267)
Intentional Homicide (2268-2269)
…

Scroll to the bottom of the Table of Contents. The very last thing given there is the copyright date. The document LS has been using is the old one and it is superseded by the one linked to above.

Ender

It’s obvious to see that this is not an official submission. I’ve never linked to it before ever when searching for official Catechism entries. When you use the Vatican site to go there the French entry is also dated 2003 which is obviously a date the copy was submitted to the web… not an official updated third edition of the Catechism. That French entry as well as the other language entries do not contain a separate subheading of Capital Punishment either.

Look closely at the English entry though. It doesn’t include the Apostolic Letter or the Apostolic Constitution which identify it as authentic. It’s full of punctuation errors, has line spacing wrong, it doesn’t use indentation, doesn’t use small text to identify quotes from referenced documents, doesn’t use bold text for numbers and sub headings. It’s a shoddy submission and luckily not linked to when you search for specifics from Google.

Apart from that I have never heard of there being an official update in 2003. It is not mentioned on any of the national Episcopal conference sites for either the US, Aust., NZ or UK. All the Catholic sites produce or link to the official second edition of 1997.

I don’t know who runs the Vatican website or how well looked after it is, but I’d be loath to quote from that entry as being official. Nothing about it says official.

 

[adrift]

I don’t know who runs the Vatican website or how well looked after it is, but I’d be loath to quote from that entry as being official. Nothing about it says official.

Being on the official site of the Vatican Web doesn’t count?

 

[LongingSoul]

Being on the official site of the Vatican Web doesn’t count?

But you’d have to think this doesn’t give much weight to the internet staffs competency wouldn’t you? The poor quality of the whole document and the failure to issue this ‘third edition’ as a hard copy for the worlds faithful? I mean next time I’m in at the Cathedral bookshop I’ll check out the latest prints and see if they’ve been changed to this new wording… but I’m highly sceptical.

 

[Ender]

It’s obvious to see that this is not an official submission.

I don’t know how much more official it could be.
Go to the Vatican home page.
Select Resource Library
Select Catechism of the Catholic Church
Select English
… and there you are. How could this not be the official submission?

When you use the Vatican site to go there the French entry is also dated 2003 which is obviously a date the copy was submitted to the web… not an official updated third edition of the Catechism.

Something put out on the web won’t come with a copyright date from the Libreria Editrice Vaticana. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that the Vatican put out some random, non approved version of the catechism instead of an official version.

I don’t know who runs the Vatican website or how well looked after it is, but I’d be loath to quote from that entry as being official. Nothing about it says official.

Nothing about it says it is official other than the fact that you are taken directly to it from the Vatican home page.

Ender