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

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone. In another thread going on one user, Ender, argues that the Church has changed its teaching on the death penalty. This is causing me some doubts because I know that the Church never changes its doctrines. I read this article which states that the teaching on the death penalty has not changed:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty

But anyway that article did not eliminate my doubts. Therefore I am coming here to ask for help. Can someone please explain in relatively simple terms how the Church has not changed her teaching on the death penalty?

 

[CatholicRaven]

I don’t think I can explain better than the article did, and I have not read the other thread, but I’ll add my thoughts in the hopes that they might help you in some small way.

This is what the CCC says:
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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. (2306)

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 absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”68

In other words, the Church has always allowed for the use of the death penalty by the state. It’s never been considered the BEST solution–but sometimes the only one; a sort of “last resort.” In our day and age, we have many other viable options that make it extremely unlikely that the death penalty will need to be used by the state, but that doesn’t mean it *always will be *that way (or that it has always been that way in the past).

In other words, the state retains the right to use the death penalty if it becomes necessary to use it (if there is no other option) for some reason; and at this point in time, there are plenty of other options which render the death penalty basically unnecessary–or at least should be extremely rare. The Church is simply re-stating the state’s (or other governing body’s) duty to consider **every other option **first, and to keep the death penalty as a last resort, and not as a “normal” consequence for crimes.

I’ll add one more thought:
“Many who live deserve death. And many who die deserve life. Can you give it to them?
Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment, for even the very wise cannot see all ends.” -Gandalf the Grey in LOTR by J.R.R. Tolkien

The Church is saying “Don’t be too eager to deal out death in judgement when there are other options available.”

HTH.

 

[livingwordunity]

Since the Church teaches that the death penalty is a prudential judgment to begin with, it can change and can go back and forth from more to less restrictive. This contrasts with abortion which the Church says is always and everywhere an intrinsic evil, murder, and a sin that cries to God for justice.

 

[Ender]

Hey everyone. In another thread going on one user, Ender, argues that the Church has changed its teaching on the death penalty.

This is actually not what I have said. I stated that the teaching in section 2267 of the new catechism is a departure from what the church said in all of her previous catechisms (and statements of Popes, Doctors, Fathers, and councils) and that one of two conditions must be true. If 2267 is doctrine then it is a repudiation of 2000 years of church teaching on this subject but that if it is a prudential judgment then it fits completely within what the church has always taught and the doctrine is unchanged.

I agree with Cardinal Dulles that the new position is prudential and therefore there is no reason to be concerned that the church’s doctrine has changed.Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *Ender
*

 

[Holly3278]

This is actually not what I have said. I stated that the teaching in section 2267 of the new catechism is a departure from what the church said in all of her previous catechisms (and statements of Popes, Doctors, Fathers, and councils) and that one of two conditions must be true. If 2267 is doctrine then it is a repudiation of 2000 years of church teaching on this subject but that if it is a prudential judgment then it fits completely within what the church has always taught and the doctrine is unchanged.

I agree with Cardinal Dulles that the new position is prudential and therefore there is no reason to be concerned that the church’s doctrine has changed.Like the Pope, the bishops do not rule out capital punishment altogether, but they say that it is not justifiable as practiced in the United States today. In coming to this prudential conclusion, the magisterium is not changing the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine remains what it has been: that the State, in principle, has the right to impose the death penalty on persons convicted of very serious crimes. *Ender
*

I am sorry Ender. I must have misinterpreted your posts in the other thread. Please forgive me.

That said, I believe that the Church teaches that the death penalty should only be used as a last resort. My misunderstanding is this: Has the Church always taught that the death penalty should only be used as a last resort? I mean, if I understand it correctly the death penalty was used much more frequently during the Medieval times. But then again I also recognize that the Medieval times were a lot different than what they are today. Perhaps during Medieval times it really was the case that it was necessary to use the death penalty more frequently as a last resort?

 

[triumphguy]

I think you are right.

 

[powerofk]

Vatican City had the legal death penalty on their books until the 1970s. Part of the problem with the death penalty, as I see it, is that the church teaches that it should only be used when there are no other means of the state being able to protect its citizens from a dangerous criminal.

In other words, in more developed countries, we have developed a prison system which is able to imprison people for life without parole or hope of escape. In our countries, there should be no need for the death penalty, and as such, the death penalty is more used not to protect the public, but for the revenge of the victims’ families, which is wrong. And, in fact, it has been shown that many times, especially in the US, several people on death row have been exonerated - some, unfortunately, after execution. Also, allowing people to be in jail for life without parole gives the people time to truly repent of their sins, and possibly to reconcile with both God and the victims’ families.

However, in more developing countries, the death penalty may be more necessary in order to protect their people from danger, as there are very few other ways to protect the public from a dangerous criminal. In other words, the Catechism asks us to ask ourselves Why are we sentencing these people to death? Is it to gain revenge for the victims’ families? Or is it the only feasible way to protect the public from these people?

 

[Cojuanco]

But many developing countries have banned the death penalty - take the historically fiercely Catholic Philippines. Take Brazil, for another example.

 

[DebChris]

The term doctrine gets tossed around. These are the basic teaching of the Church, and they do not change. They would include such things as the mercy of God.
The death penalty has to do with social justice and man made laws. How justice has been meted out through the generations by governments has changed, and the understanding of justice has likewise developed over time.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

I don’t think Jesus was ever a great fan of judicial capital punishment.

I used to think it ironic that when the UK still had the death penalty, the judge would put the black cloth on his head and utter the words of execution and follow up with, " … and may God have mercy on your soul".} In other words, ‘we are not going to have mercy on your body, but better luck regarding your soul’

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t think Jesus was ever a great fan of judicial capital punishment.

If Jesus would have always been against the death penalty He would not have allowed Himself to be crucified. And Jesus would have corrected the so-called “good thief” when the thief said to the other criminal, “for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” (Luke 23:41).

 

[epan]

Since the Church teaches that the death penalty is a prudential judgment to begin with, it can change and can go back and forth from more to less restrictive. This contrasts with abortion which the Church says is always and everywhere an intrinsic evil, murder, and a sin that cries to God for justice.

The Church once felt that it was a good thing to burn heretics alive, and that torture was an acceptable means to extract a confession. Those practices are no longer held in high esteem.

I have believed that this change is an example of changing Church Doctrine. Would you rather say that this change is a matter of changes in taste, or changes in prudential judgement?

 

[livingwordunity]

The Church once felt that it was a good thing to burn heretics alive, and that torture was an acceptable means to extract a confession.

Which Church document said that?

 

[Ender]

Has the Church always taught that the death penalty should only be used as a last resort?

The church did not teach that capital punishment should be used as a last resort because it was never thought of it primarily in those terms. It was not the need for protection that informed their position but their sense of justice and the belief that the punishment of death was appropriate because it was just, not simply because it provided protection.

I mean, if I understand it correctly the death penalty was used much more frequently during the Medieval times.

Opposition to capital punishment is a purely modern phenomenon. Within the church it is no more than 40 years old.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I used to think it ironic that when the UK still had the death penalty, the judge would put the black cloth on his head and utter the words of execution and follow up with, " … and may God have mercy on your soul".} In other words, ‘we are not going to have mercy on your body, but better luck regarding your soul’

It is a misunderstanding of the proper exercise of mercy to suppose that it should be universally applied in all circumstances or that it means the same as clemency. Besides, if a little mercy is a good thing (incarceration instead of execution), wouldn’t more mercy be even better (letting him go with no punishment at all)? Mercy and justice are both virtues and one needs to be satisfied without sacrificing the other.

Ender

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Ender - I am reminded of a famous quotation from perhaps the world’s most famous playwright - written during a time when folks were executed and indeed tortured not just what we might judge as serious crimes, but more trivial ones, and also for the ‘crime’ of having a contrary religious conscience.

The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
'T is mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway,
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God’s,
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That in the course of justice none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

William Shakespeare, “The Merchant of Venice”, Act 4 scene 1

[ps. Have you read the novel ‘Ender’s Game’ - I have a copy; an interesting read.]

 

[epan]

Which Church document said that?

Thanks for trying, but your reply is utterly non-responsive to the question.We all know the history of this sort of thing. I am trying to understand what people mean when they say that the Church never changes its moral doctrine. It seems to me that it does, and to burn people alive in one century, and then over time to change that behavior, seems to me to be a change in moral perspective.

 

[LongingSoul]

It is a misunderstanding of the proper exercise of mercy to suppose that it should be universally applied in all circumstances or that it means the same as clemency. Besides, if a little mercy is a good thing (incarceration instead of execution), wouldn’t more mercy be even better (letting him go with no punishment at all)? Mercy and justice are both virtues and one needs to be satisfied without sacrificing the other.

Ender

That is like saying if my diseased limb can be saved by treatment rather than amputation wouldn’t it be even better to withhold all treatment altogether.

 

[CatholicRaven]

Thanks for trying, but your reply is utterly non-responsive to the question.We all know the history of this sort of thing. I am trying to understand what people mean when they say that the Church never changes its moral doctrine. It seems to me that it does, and to burn people alive in one century, and then over time to change that behavior, seems to me to be a change in moral perspective.

It was a legitimate response to your question–you made an accusation within the question, which, if false, entirely changes your question. We (and you, if you really want a proper answer) need proof that the accusation is true before we can proceed.

I’m not trying to be disrespectful here; I believed that part of “history” too, for many years–until I read some of the actual history, rather than the “common knowledge,” twisted version of it.

Therefore, since you made the statement, please back it up with the proof requested showing that this is what the Church taught. I think you will find it very interesting when you seek the truth.

I also think perhaps you misunderstand where the Church’s doctrine comes from and what it is. What one or another *man of the church *may (or may not) do, is not necessarily Church doctrine.

 

[DebChris]

…
I also think perhaps you misunderstand where the Church’s doctrine comes from and what it is. What one or another *man of the church *may (or may not) do, is not necessarily Church doctrine.

This is what I said in my response. I think the term doctrine is overused. There is a difference between teaching and application or understanding. Doctrine does not change. Our understanding of what Christ taught has developed through the ages. The teaching authority of the Church, the magisterium, is comprised of the pope and the bishops. Tradition, what Christ taught the Apostles is handed down through the ages through the magisterium to each succeeding generation, and is protected by the Holy Spirit.

Doctrine is by definition “A belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a church.”
Off-topic, but being discussed on a different thread. Priestly celibacy would be considered a disciple, not a doctrine. Used here only as an illustration of a misunderstanding of the term doctrine.