Did the Catholic Church's teaching on the death penalty change?

[Ender]

Again, Innocent I says it is ‘permitted’ by God. That isn’t the way one would talk of punishment per se. Punishment for wrong doing is mandated as you’d say. The death penalty is permitted.

You keep altering my position to make it easier to rebut. I have never said that capital punishment is mandated, nor is that the meaning of “precept.” Saying that something ought to be applied is not at all the same as saying it must be applied; surely you can recognize the difference.

When the ‘life blood’ of others is in danger, then the aggressor relinquishes his right to ‘life blood’.

Once again you have rephrased a passage to express something that has never been said. The proper paraphrase of Gn 9:6 is when the “life blood” of someone has been taken, then the aggressor relinquishes his right to “life blood.” Genesis actually says “taken”, not “threatened.”

But as you’ve just demonstrated above, the penalty has been applied in less severe cases than shedding blood, so even being very specific in that way, man has used it for other crimes than the shedding of blood.

Yes, and this accords with Aquinas’ treatment of the subject.

The ‘permission’ has been invoked at different times for different crimes according to the circumstances as discerned by men based on reason and natural law. The Churchs job is to, with God’s grace, communicate Divine law.

And this is what the church has communicated: “*These punishments are fixed by divine law” *

Summa Theologica…

"The Old Law is distinct from the natural law, not as being altogether different from it, but as something added thereto. For just as grace presupposes nature, so must the Divine law presuppose the natural law. …

I don’t understand the point you’re making here.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Some other Fathers and Doctors of the Church have this to say…

All of these citations imply that I should simply shut up and accept someone else’s understanding of 2267, but I don’t believe any of these passages is applicable in this situation since this is not an issue of obedience to church doctrine but of understanding what the doctrine really is. I am inclined to address the issue in the light of my own understanding of what the church teaches; that is not just my right but my obligation. “If faith does not think it is nothing.” (Fides et Ratio #79)

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

I have asked several times for someone to identify the basis for the claim about the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment as it is identified in 2267. LongingSoul has at least attempted to respond to this challenge but the nature of her strained interpretations of comments from Augustine and Aquinas should make it obvious that finding support for the assertion in 2267 is probably not going to happen. This is not surprising as the traditional teaching identified in the 1997 version is obviously different than the traditional teaching identified in the 1992 version. Quite clearly they cannot both be accurate.

I’ve never, ever, understood this hermeneutic of discontinuity.

You shouldn’t have mentioned the church Fathers inasmuch as virtually all of them supported the right of states to employ capital punishment and not one of them suggested the caveat contained in 2267 that its use was dependent on its need to protect society.

Ender

Sure, states have a right in principle to use the death penalty. But the Church’s tradition has always supported clemency and the opportunity to not use capital punishment if possible, even if the crime is very serious, so that there is then a person capable of repenting and reforming.

 

[Ender]

I’ve never, ever, understood this hermeneutic of discontinuity.

1992 edition: 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.

1997 edition: 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.
These two descriptions of the traditional teaching of the church are different and only one (competing) description of history can be accurate. The assertion has been made with extensive documentation that the 1992 version is the correct one. Even if we can’t agree on that point surely we should be able to agree that the two versions are different.**Only in the last 40 years of its history has the church come out against state-sponsored executions, except in highly delimited circumstances. Such a departure from previous teaching, which stretches back almost two millennia, is bound to invite controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful. … In the short span of time between the first edition of the text and the final official Latin version issued in 1997, the section pertaining to the death penalty was significantly revised. (Archbishop Wilton Gregory, 2011)

Sure, states have a right in principle to use the death penalty. But the Church’s tradition has always supported clemency…

But even clemency has limits.
Hence Augustine says (De Civ. Dei ix, 5) that “this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) “obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant.” (Aquinas ST I-II 30,3)

There is a place for the judge’s mercy in matters that are left to the judge’s discretion, because in like matters a good man is slow to punish as the Philosopher states (Ethic. v, 10). But in matters that are determined in accordance with Divine or human laws, it is not left to him to show mercy. (Ibid II-II 67 4,1)

… and the opportunity to not use capital punishment if possible, even if the crime is very serious, so that there is then a person capable of repenting and reforming.

*Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications. *(Romano Amerio)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

We have discussed the development of doctrine; again, that is not at issue. The development of doctrine however cannot include the reversal of the old doctrine; abrogation is not development.

We can go from a time and place where an action is advisable to a time and place when the same action is inadvisable but this does not involve either the development or change of the doctrines involved. This is a purely practical judgment, like deciding not to go outside during a blizzard.

Cruelty has nothing to do with penal capacities. If capital punishment is cruel today it was just as cruel in the past so an indictment of it as cruel now includes an indictment of it as cruel throughout history.

Ender

To use your example… to decide not to use capital punishment if the environment is ‘deadly’, and to not send someone outside when the climate is ‘deadly’ is making a practical decision for moral reasons. To send a postman out in a blizzard because the US Postal Service creed is ‘we deliver no matter rain, hail or shine’ or to use the ‘license to kill’ (which is how capital punishment presents in the US), in an environment which already has a strong mentality of ‘licence to kill’ (abortion, private guns etc) because Genesis 9-6 literally mandates it … is cruel and unnecessary. It has a moral value that can’t be avoided. Everything we do has a moral value because God is in everything in the world. So much so that He *becomes the blood sacrifice *that He once demanded of us. I see that as the greatest difference between the Old Law and the New. We aren’t separate from moral law anymore because we know God personally through Christ and we aren’t meant to appeal to the Old Law for moral guidance.

 

[dudleysharp]

quod.lib.umich.edu/m/micounty/apk1036.0001.001/314?didno=APK1036.0001.001;page=root;size=s;view=image

In a drunken rage he murdered his wife. Very little doubt about guilt or that this was a death penalty eligible crime, probably through to 1971, nationally.

It was only with Gregg V Georgia (1976), that we put tremendous limitations on death penalty eligible crimes.

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by CrossofChrist
I’ve never, ever, understood this hermeneutic of discontinuity.

You’ve snipped the two versions to make it seem like the two editions are in conflict. The 1992 version is actually prefaced with “Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason … 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.”

The 1997 edition simply expounds on this further for clarity. In his 2005 Christmas address, Pope Benedict makes the point as per John XXIII… “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another…”, retaining the same meaning and message".

The substance is the same. Unless we really believe that the last few Popes and the US Bishops are incredibly devious or stupid, we should be working within ourselves to seek the true substance of the doctrine rather than trying incessantly to put the Church into conflict with itself. Is it really not possible that when we feel affronted by a Church teaching, that the problem could lie in ourselves?

*"The hermeneutic of discontinuity is countered by the hermeneutic of reform, as it was presented first by Pope John XXIII in his Speech inaugurating the Council on 11 October 1962 and later by Pope Paul VI in his Discourse for the Council’s conclusion on 7 December 1965.

Here I shall cite only John XXIII’s well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes “to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion”. And he continues: “Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us…”. It is necessary that “adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness…” be presented in “faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another…”, retaining the same meaning and message (The Documents of Vatican II, Walter M. Abbott, S.J., p. 715).

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding." *- Pope Benedict XVI 2005

 

[DavidLukenbill]

The 1997 edition simply expounds on this further for clarity. In his 2005 Christmas address, Pope Benedict makes the point as per John XXIII… “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another…”, retaining the same meaning and message".

The substance is the same. Unless we really believe that the last few Popes and the US Bishops are incredibly devious or stupid, we should be working within ourselves to seek the true substance of the doctrine rather than trying incessantly to put the Church into conflict with itself. Is it really not possible that when we feel affronted by a Church teaching, that the problem could lie in ourselves?

I agree with this, nothing really substantial changed between the 1992 edition and the 1997 edition in terms of the Church’s support for capital punishment, the language only became more pastoral.

That being said, I would still have preffered that the language in the 1992 edition would have been rolled over to the 1997 edition unchanged, as it would have resulted in much less ambiguity; however, the very fact of the ambiguity also results in folks (as we are now doing) really engaging on this most important issue.

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree with this, nothing really substantial changed between the 1992 edition and the 1997 edition in terms of the Church’s support for capital punishment, the language only became more pastoral.

That being said, I would still have preffered that the language in the 1992 edition would have been rolled over to the 1997 edition unchanged, as it would have resulted in much less ambiguity; however, the very fact of the ambiguity also results in folks (as we are now doing) really engaging on this most important issue.

Whenever this subject comes up, my affinities always gravitate to the fifth commandment whereas for others they seem to gravitate to divine justice. “Thou shalt not kill” is such a stark and succinct direction that rises above any ambiguity. I realise that the old Testament had a distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ per se, but look at how the modern mentalities and modes of rationalising have blurred that distinction. People and some states don’t consider abortion or euthanasia or suicide or lethal street justice (as per Zimmerman- who incidentally I feel sorry for having been given a licence to kill as he did), murder anymore. “Thou shalt not kill” has to inform all our actions that result in the death of a person. The idea of ‘legitimate defense’ is a vital safeguard to the fifth commandment as I see it. The belief that we can kill ‘because God ordered us to’ is fraught with grave problems in this day and age. That has already been ascertained by the Church… it having offered up numerous apologies for times in her history where her concept of just killing has been distorted horribly. I think its discerning and prudent the way John Paul II especially, developed Aquinas principle of double effect into the concept of legitimate defense in order that our human frailty is acknowledged and constrained in the area of justice and punishment, so as the fifth commandment stays relevant and vital to the common good in general.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Whenever this subject comes up, my affinities always gravitate to the fifth commandment whereas for others they seem to gravitate to divine justice. “Thou shalt not kill” is such a stark and succinct direction that rises above any ambiguity. I realise that the old Testament had a distinction between ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ per se, but look at how the modern mentalities and modes of rationalising have blurred that distinction. People and some states don’t consider abortion or euthanasia or suicide or lethal street justice (as per Zimmerman- who incidentally I feel sorry for having been given a licence to kill as he did), murder anymore. “Thou shalt not kill” has to inform all our actions that result in the death of a person. The idea of ‘legitimate defense’ is a vital safeguard to the fifth commandment as I see it. The belief that we can kill ‘because God ordered us to’ is fraught with grave problems in this day and age. That has already been ascertained by the Church… it having offered up numerous apologies for times in her history where her concept of just killing has been distorted horribly. I think its discerning and prudent the way John Paul II especially, developed Aquinas principle of double effect into the concept of legitimate defense in order that our human frailty is acknowledged and constrained in the area of justice and punishment, so as the fifth commandment stays relevant and vital to the common good in general.

A definition from Hardon’s *Modern Catholic Dictionary *may be helpful here:

“Pastoral Theology. The practical application of scientific theology to the care of souls in the sacred ministry. Its purpose is to render this ministry more effective by the use of proven methods of dealing with the spiritual needs of individuals or groups of the faithful. A relatively new discipline, it came into being to cope with the increasingly complex and changing circumstances of modern life. It draws on the principles and methodology of both the secular and the sacred sciences, with special concern to help the people live out their Christian commitments in conflict with a hostile or at least indifferent non-Christian society." (p. 497)

Scientific theology is clearly that from St Thomas Aquinas and pastoral theology would describe that which has been coming from the Vatican since Pope John XXIII, but both are a reflection of the traditional theology of the Catholic Church, but expressed in different ways, for different times; a strategy straight from St. Paul.

 

[LongingSoul]

A definition from Hardon’s *Modern Catholic Dictionary *may be helpful here:

“Pastoral Theology. The practical application of scientific theology to the care of souls in the sacred ministry. Its purpose is to render this ministry more effective by the use of proven methods of dealing with the spiritual needs of individuals or groups of the faithful. A relatively new discipline, it came into being to cope with the increasingly complex and changing circumstances of modern life. It draws on the principles and methodology of both the secular and the sacred sciences, with special concern to help the people live out their Christian commitments in conflict with a hostile or at least indifferent non-Christian society." (p. 497)

Scientific theology is clearly that from St Thomas Aquinas and pastoral theology would describe that which has been coming from the Vatican since Pope John XXIII, but both are a reflection of the traditional theology of the Catholic Church, but expressed in different ways, for different times; a strategy straight from St. Paul.

That sounds about right but I also think that Jesus was incredibly pastoral in His delivery. The idea of teaching in parables and drawing a person into understanding through real life experience was a lot different to the violent symbolism and cosmic drama that revealed God in the Old Testament. There is a place for that as the book of Revelations demonstrates, but for us as Christians having our sensibilities awakened in the Christian way, we need to treat of that sort of symbolism in the light of the ‘medicine’ of divine mercy. I’ve personally always been sensitive to the spirit of things and did find the delivery of doctrine developed by the Catholic middle ages, frightening. Think of how the Church delivered ‘no salvation outside the Church’ then…

“It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

There are still some Catholics who see the new teaching on this subject as an abrogation of the doctrine. The lesson may be that though it seems to have been flipped on its head the substance is still there.

Anyway, that’s a bit of a tangent but does demonstrate that difference between substance and delivery.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

That sounds about right but I also think that Jesus was incredibly pastoral in His delivery. The idea of teaching in parables and drawing a person into understanding through real life experience was a lot different to the violent symbolism and cosmic drama that revealed God in the Old Testament. There is a place for that as the book of Revelations demonstrates, but for us as Christians having our sensibilities awakened in the Christian way, we need to treat of that sort of symbolism in the light of the ‘medicine’ of divine mercy. I’ve personally always been sensitive to the spirit of things and did find the delivery of doctrine developed by the Catholic middle ages, frightening. Think of how the Church delivered ‘no salvation outside the Church’ then…

There are still some Catholics who see the new teaching on this subject as an abrogation of the doctrine. The lesson may be that though it seems to have been flipped on its head the substance is still there.

Anyway, that’s a bit of a tangent but does demonstrate that difference between substance and delivery.

Actually, the violence and chaos of the times of the Old Testament were very congruent with the words of the Old Testament; though they are not necessarily so now; and the ability of Christ—God—to tell stories containing such deep truths is way beyond that of any of the most artful theologians or philosophers since, which is way we keep finding such deep meaning in them, as even a cursory reading of the Catena Aurea baroniuspress.com/book.php?wid=56&bid=53#tab=tab-1 reveals.

And, so true, we are blessed that we now live in a world where Catholics do not kill heretics, though, tragically some religons still do.

Also true that many ‘traditionalists’ a label I have sometimes applied to myself, do forget that change in words need not always be a change in belief, but it may require some more study to find the still pure and ancient root within the perceived ambiguity.

 

[Ender]

You’ve snipped the two versions to make it seem like the two editions are in conflict.

No, I was being specific. The two versions make explicit statements about “the traditional teaching of the church” and those were the two comments I cited. What I left out I did so because it wasn’t relevant to that topic.

The 1992 version is actually prefaced with "Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm.

Preserving the common good involves more than punishment and a good deal more than mere physical protection.

For this reason … 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."

And for whatever reason, this description of the traditional teaching differs from the one given in the 1997 version … which is the point I’ve been trying to make.

In his 2005 Christmas address, Pope Benedict makes the point as per John XXIII… “The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another…”, retaining the same meaning and message".

A statement made about another subject is not relevant to this one.

The substance is the same.

Why is it so hard to acknowledge the difference between the 1992 and 1997 versions? The difference is real, as Archbishop Gregory explicitly noted and pretty much everyone recognizes. How can you on the one hand argue about the “development of doctrine” and on the other argue that nothing has changed? Pick one or the other; they are mutually exclusive.

Unless we really believe that the last few Popes and the US Bishops are incredibly devious or stupid, we should be working within ourselves to seek the true substance of the doctrine rather than trying incessantly to put the Church into conflict with itself.

The doctrine has not changed only because 2267 is not doctrinal.*
*

Here I shall cite only John XXIII’s well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes “to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion”.

It should be obvious that nothing John XXIII said is relevant since the changes we are discussing came after his death and generic statements cannot be assumed to be universally applicable.
*
Ender
*

 

[Ender]

“Thou shalt not kill” is such a stark and succinct direction that rises above any ambiguity.

Except that it has never been taken to mean one should never kill; there have always been exceptions. What it really means is that the right to kill belongs solely to the state (even when that authority is improperly used).**Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause [that is, by public authority], to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense. **(Leo XIII)

People and some states don’t consider abortion or euthanasia or suicide or lethal street justice (as per Zimmerman- who incidentally I feel sorry for having been given a licence to kill as he did), murder anymore.

This is ridiculous. Zimmerman had no license to kill; he killed in self defense which even you recognize as valid.
“The idea of ‘legitimate defense’ is a vital safeguard to the fifth commandment as I see it.”

I think its discerning and prudent the way John Paul II especially, developed Aquinas principle of double effect into the concept of legitimate defense in order that our human frailty is acknowledged and constrained in the area of justice and punishment, so as the fifth commandment stays relevant and vital to the common good in general.

I don’t think any kind of argument can be made that the principle of double effect justifies capital punishment and I have certainly not seen that argument attempted. If that is the argument JPII made I am not aware of it. Where have you found it?

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Undeniably, yes.

Before I address your argument, there are some continual comments that I find inappropriate and slightly disturbing such as … “2267 one disaster after another”…“obvious conflict with Genesis”… “additional conflicts within its own document”… “There is a contradiction”… “poorly considered…”… “Astounding. The Church has knowingly done this.”… “the Church’s teachings are inaccurate and do not represent a prudential judgement”… “Again, a very poorly written section.”… “It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten.”… “Could there be a more clear message which contradicts this new Church teaching”… "The Catechism thus, wrongly, finds…” … “Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.” …and so on and so on. If you aren’t Catholic, it’d be good to show your hand now and give this all some context… but if you are… this line is highly inappropriate.

… continued

What I find most disturbing is that my comments and those of many others are true and they describe real problems with the Catechism.

Those problems have been found and described by solid Catholic scholars:

In recent years by Flannery, Remick, Long, Dunnigan, Amerio, Dulles and then with 2000 years of Church teachings by prior Catechisms, Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, etc., and from them we can see obvious contradictions, lack of clarity and obvious errors, all of which have been revealed by Catholic scholars.

My point has been that such problems should not exist and that they should be corrected and, eventually, will be.

I am not Catholic, but my lines of observation are only made with solid Catholic backing and any Catholic would be justified in making such observations, as they are true and have solid support from Catholic scholarship, particularly, if we accept the officlal Church position that this is a prudential judgement issue, which, as I stated, I am not sure, as there seems to be some doctrinal issue with redress f justice, being usurped by prison security.

 

[LongingSoul]

No, I was being specific. The two versions make explicit statements about “the traditional teaching of the church” and those were the two comments I cited. What I left out I did so because it wasn’t relevant to that topic.
Preserving the common good involves more than punishment and a good deal more than mere physical protection.
And for whatever reason, this description of the traditional teaching differs from the one given in the 1997 version … which is the point I’ve been trying to make.
A statement made about another subject is not relevant to this one.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge the difference between the 1992 and 1997 versions? The difference is real, as Archbishop Gregory explicitly noted and pretty much everyone recognizes. How can you on the one hand argue about the “development of doctrine” and on the other argue that nothing has changed? Pick one or the other; they are mutually exclusive.
The doctrine has not changed only because 2267 is not doctrinal.*

• It should be obvious that nothing John XXIII said is relevant since the changes we are discussing came after his death and generic statements cannot be assumed to be universally applicable.

Ender
*

I’m not arguing that nothing has changed. I’m saying that while the presentation changes with the era, the substance is forever the same. If you want my opinion here, the position you represent has serious anti-Catholic roots that misrepresent the true spirit of Catholicism which is a servant Church on earth. Pope Francis has warned against this phenomenon of being a ‘self-referential’ Church detached from our God. Through our obedience to ‘Peter’ we are obedient to God.

“Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”” Matt 16 17-19

If the Pope says ‘this is the traditional teaching of the Church’, then we can have confidence that he by dint of his ordination and election, is refining the substance of the doctrine so that we can better understand and live Gods will for us. The doctrines of the Church serve God not the Church and we can have every confidence in the Popes explications of doctrine since that is what he is commissioned to do.

 

[LongingSoul]

Except that it has never been taken to mean one should never kill; there have always been exceptions. What it really means is that the right to kill belongs solely to the state (even when that authority is improperly used).**Clearly, divine law, both that which is known by the light of reason and that which is revealed in Sacred Scripture, strictly forbids anyone, outside of public cause **[that is, by public authority]*, to kill or wound a man unless compelled to do so in self defense. *(Leo XIII)

*“even when that authority is improperly used”… *This is simply not true. Circumstances can make its use improper. The state is answerable to the community. It serves the common good and the welfare of the people first and foremost. If it is doing something that is detrimental to the welfare of the people, it has no authority to continue doing it by some perceived divine order. It acts on Gods authority by serving the communities welfare. You are imagining that like a Priest who can forgive sin on Gods behalf and consecrate at the altar no matter what state of grace or sin he is in, that the state is similarly ordained with this ontologically changed character. The priest receives this character by virtue of the sacrament. Noah, Moses , Abraham, David etc received this character by virtue of the direct hand of God in their ‘election’. We, the people of Christ, cannot claim to have this ontologically altered character. You are wrong to keep claiming that of the state.

Fr. Francis Spirago, from his 1899 “The Catechism Explained” regarding the Roman Catechism says…

“The officers of justice, in as far as they stand in the place of God, have the right to sentence evil-doers to capital punishment. . . . The authority of the magistrate is God’s authority; when he condemns a criminal, it is not he who condemns him, but God. . . . Yet the judge must not act arbitrarily; he must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of society demands it. Human society is a body of which each individual is a member; and as a diseased limb has to be amputated in order to save the body, so criminals must be executed to save society. As a matter of course the culprit’s guilt must be proved; better let the guilty go free than condemn the innocent. It is an error to suppose that the Church advocates capital punishment on the principle of retaliation; an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. This is a principle of Judaism, not of Christianity. The Church does not like to see blood shed, she desires that every sinner should have time to amend. She permits, but does not approve capital punishment.”

“…he must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of society demands it.” The Church has been battling this misconception for a very long time it seems.

This is ridiculous. Zimmerman had no license to kill; he killed in self defense which even you recognize as valid.
“The idea of ‘legitimate defense’ is a vital safeguard to the fifth commandment as I see it.”

By putting a ‘dedicated’ lethal weapon into the hands of an individual with permission to use it lethally, you are giving an individual a ‘licence to kill’. I want to be clear that I’m not judging that individual. He technically could not be prosecuted without making an arse of your law. But it must surely highlight that this licence has lifelong consequences for the poor individual who has cause to use it. I believe that Zimmerman will be looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life. His wounds won’t be healed by a hospital stay.

I don’t think any kind of argument can be made that the principle of double effect justifies capital punishment and I have certainly not seen that argument attempted. If that is the argument JPII made I am not aware of it. Where have you found it?

The death penalty comes under the heading of legitimate defense in the CCC. It has always been regarded as ‘self defense’ by the Church, but separate from an individuals right to self defense as the state has the commission to punish criminals for the wellbeing of the community. The state of todays penal system compared to that in any time in the past, makes it possible to protect the community without going to the extreme of killing the criminal. By this unfolding of human intiative, we are able to see the death penalty in a clearer light.

 

[LongingSoul]

Undeniably, yes.

What I find most disturbing is that my comments and those of many others are true and they describe real problems with the Catechism.

Those problems have been found and described by solid Catholic scholars:

In recent years by Flannery, Remick, Long, Dunnigan, Amerio, Dulles and then with 2000 years of Church teachings by prior Catechisms, Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, etc., and from them we can see obvious contradictions, lack of clarity and obvious errors, all of which have been revealed by Catholic scholars.

My point has been that such problems should not exist and that they should be corrected and, eventually, will be.

I am not Catholic, but my lines of observation are only made with solid Catholic backing and any Catholic would be justified in making such observations, as they are true and have solid support from Catholic scholarship, particularly, if we accept the officlal Church position that this is a prudential judgement issue, which, as I stated, I am not sure, as there seems to be some doctrinal issue with redress f justice, being usurped by prison security.

I can understand, you not being Catholic, have no loyalty to Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis and the body of theologians loyal to the pilgrim Church, its doctrines and tradition (I make no distinction between these men and the Fathers before them at all). There is a well documented history of Protestantism that rejects the authority of the Pope and claim that Catholic doctrine contradicts the bible. I simply don’t understand why catholics, given the graces of confirmation to grow beyond a self-centered spirituality to live for others and ***strengthening ***our bonds with the Church… can keep saying that ‘the Church is wrong’, ‘the Pope is wrong’, … in error… mistaken… or God forbid, evil. It baffles me beyond belief.

 

[Ender]

I’m not arguing that nothing has changed. I’m saying that while the presentation changes with the era, the substance is forever the same.

The changes certainly seem substantive enough or this topic wouldn’t be so thoroughly debated.

If you want my opinion here, the position you represent has serious anti-Catholic roots that misrepresent the true spirit of Catholicism which is a servant Church on earth.

“My” opinion is nothing more than the doctrines set forth by popes, the Fathers and Doctors of the church, catechisms and councils for 2000 years. It isn’t immediately clear how these can be considered anti-Catholic since they represent the pinnacle of Catholic thought.

If the Pope says ‘this is the traditional teaching of the Church’, then we can have confidence that he by dint of his ordination and election, is refining the substance of the doctrine so that we can better understand and live Gods will for us.

Actually, JPII never said that. If you read Evangelium Vitae you will not find the phrase found in the catechism which - incorrectly - describes the “traditional teaching.”

The doctrines of the Church serve God not the Church and we can have every confidence in the Popes explications of doctrine since that is what he is commissioned to do.

I think this is not only the strongest argument for your position but the only one available. Clinging to “It’s right because the pope said it” alleviates the problem of logically defending a questionable position or even having to admit that problems exist with it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

*“even when that authority is improperly used”… *This is simply not true. Circumstances can make its use improper. The state is answerable to the community.

Pilot had the authority to put Jesus to death, that authority was from God, and Pilot did not lose that authority even though he misused it. Authority is given to the bad and the good alike.

We, the people of Christ, cannot claim to have this ontologically altered character. You are wrong to keep claiming that of the state.

I have never used or suggested the state has an “ontologically altered character” and would be hard pressed to explain what that means. The state does, however, have the moral right to execute criminals and that authority resides with both bad and good states equally.*“Since this is the case, let us not attribute the giving of a kingdom and the power to rule except to the true God, who gives happiness in the kingdom of heaven only to the good, but the kingdom of earth both to the good and bad, as is pleasing to Him to Whom nothing unjust is pleasing.” *(Augustine)

“…he must only sentence the criminal to death when the welfare of society demands it.” The Church has been battling this misconception for a very long time it seems.

I think the misconception here is that the “welfare of society” means only the physical protection of its citizens. It actually means a great deal more.*‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. *(Pius XII)

By putting a ‘dedicated’ lethal weapon into the hands of an individual with permission to use it lethally, you are giving an individual a ‘licence to kill’.

I assume that “dedicated lethal weapon” is a euphemism for “gun.” Is it your position then that we may validly kill someone in self defense only so long as we don’t use a gun? The church recognizes our right to kill in self defense. How is this different than having the state recognize that same right?

The death penalty comes under the heading of legitimate defense in the CCC.

No, it does not. In fact it is explicitly not part of that topic. It has its own heading which immediately follows the section on self defense. Since you felt this was a significant point when you believed capital punishment was a subset of legitimate defense are you willing to acknowledge the significance that it clearly is not covered by that topic?

It has always been regarded as ‘self defense’ by the Church…

This is incorrect as well and I challenge you to find an example of where you think the point is made. What you will find are examples where a defensive benefit is acknowledged but the church has never treated capital punishment as a matter of self defense. She treats it as a matter of justice.

By this unfolding of human intiative, we are able to see the death penalty in a clearer light.

Aren’t you the least bit uncomfortable arguing that the church and her great theologians couldn’t properly understand the nature of capital punishment through mere revelation but had to wait for the construction of super-max prisons to see things in “a clearer light”?

Ender