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

[LongingSoul]

I don’t know that all of 2267 is prudential. The first sentence is not; it is a statement about facts. Either it correctly describes the traditional teaching on this subject or it doesn’t and I don’t see evidence to support the claim. Actually though, it is the part of the second sentence that claims capital punishment is somehow contrary to man’s dignity that is most troubling as it is that very dignity that is the reason God gave for a murderer to lose his life. I am at a loss as to how to understand that part of 2267.

I don’t get why it’s ‘troubling’. The death penalty is such a revolting concept when you set aside its part in sating human vengeance. It simply doesn’t fit with the whole message that Jesus brought. I believe that the majority of the Catholic faithful in the world find the treatment of capital punishment as defined in the CCC2267, to be something to rejoice in. It makes sense to the Christianised human experience. We look back on the practice of killing heretics by capital punishment with embarrassment and regret and are even more aware of how very easy it is to distort this terrible duty out of all godliness. If practicing Catholics can do that, how much more dangerous is it in the hands of the secularised State?

By the treatment that the recent Popes, especially John Paul II have given this issue, in the big picture I see the death penalty as being a similar principle to immunisation. A small dose of the disease can gives a healthy body an immunity against being overcome and ravaged by the sickness. However, if the sickness is already present in the body, you would withhold the practice of immunising as it’s going to make the whole sickness much worse. It’d be an offense against the whole practice of immunisation to use it on an already sick body but that could happen if the practice were mistakenly believed to have intrinsic healing characteristics in and of itself. Then it could be said to be a cruel and unnecessary practice not in keeping with human health and wellbeing. This is a crude analogy to demonstrate that the death penalty while not being intrinsically evil, is not intrinsically good either. It has a role in the spiritual health of humanity but can also be cruel, unnecessary and detrimental to spiritual health if administered indiscriminately in a spirit poor secularised society. This development has been coming a long time. Even before Jesus when the ‘State’ developed as the umbrella uniting people of different persuasions by a ‘common good’.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

What you apparently fail to understand, LongingSoul, and I would encourage reading St. Thomas Aquinas on this, is that punishment must be seen in terms of the eternal life of the soul and if the soul is loved, it must often be protected from committing further sin.

In Peter Seewald and Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s book, Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times, responding to a question about the Church’s dealing with the sexual abuse crisis, Benedict said:

"The Archbishop of Dublin told me something very interesting about that. He said that ecclesiastical penal law functioned until the late 1950’s; admittedly it was not perfect–there is much to criticize about it–but nevertheless it was applied. After the mid-sixties, however, it was simply not applied any more. The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people.

“Today we have to learn all over again that love for the sinner and love for the person who has been harmed are correctly balanced if I punish the sinner in the form that is possible and appropriate. In this respect there was in the past a change of mentality, in which the law and the need for punishment were obscured. Ultimately this also narrowed the concept of love, which in fact is not just being nice or courteous, but is found in the truth. And another component of truth is that I must punish the one who has sinned against real love.” (pp. 25-26)

 

[LongingSoul]

I don’t fail to understand the Divine merit of punishment at all. As a parent of now adult children, I’m intimately familiar with the role of punishment in the developing of a fully rounded mature person. I’m not advocating the withholding of punishment at all. That’s an incorrect leap on your part.

Here we are talking exclusively about the death penalty which the traditional teaching of the Church has not excluded recourse to, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. I’ve read reams of Thomas Aquinas now but more importantly, the Church has read reams of Thomas Aquinas in formulating the teachings that are most beneficial to the souls of the faithful and in the spirit of St Ignatius, I endeavour at all times, to think with the Church.

 

[Ender]

I don’t get why it’s ‘troubling’.

It is troubling as an argument. If eliminating the death penalty is the proper thing to do then one should be able to explain why. Asserting that it is against human dignity is a direct contradiction of Gn 9:6 which the church has always used in defense of the practice, therefore this argument seems to be a repudiation of not only traditional teaching but of scripture itself.

The death penalty is such a revolting concept…

How can it be a revolting concept if the church has not only supported its use (and used it herself) but saw it as a heresy to claim that states did not have the right to employ it?

… when you set aside its part in sating human vengeance.

If you assume that people support capital punishment for evil reasons it is no wonder you oppose it but it also seems that you don’t distinguish between vengeance and justice.

It simply doesn’t fit with the whole message that Jesus brought.

Has the church been wrong about Jesus’ message for 20 centuries because that is how long she has supported the right of states to use capital punishment?

Ender

 

[Ender]

Benedict said: “The Archbishop of Dublin told me something very interesting about that. He said that ecclesiastical penal law functioned until the late 1950’s; admittedly it was not perfect–there is much to criticize about it–but nevertheless it was applied. After the mid-sixties, however, it was simply not applied any more. The prevailing mentality was that the Church must not be a Church of laws but, rather a Church of love; she must not punish. Thus the awareness that punishment can be an act of love ceased to exist. This led to an odd darkening of the mind, even in very good people.”

I think something much like this has happened with regard to capital punishment. This is an excellent citation. It also seems to fit very well with something Pius XII said in 1954:*Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings, and at the same time an attempt to bring the offender to observance of the law. In those theories, the penalty can include sanctions such as the diminution of some goods guaranteed by law, so as to teach the guilty to live honestly, but **those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty. ***
This is where we are today with capital punishment: it is justified as a means of personal protection and the more important concepts of expiation and the need to protect the law itself and not merely the public have been lost.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

It is troubling as an argument. If eliminating the death penalty is the proper thing to do then one should be able to explain why. Asserting that it is against human dignity is a direct contradiction of Gn 9:6 which the church has always used in defense of the practice, therefore this argument seems to be a repudiation of not only traditional teaching but of scripture itself.
How can it be a revolting concept if the church has not only supported its use (and used it herself) but saw it as a heresy to claim that states did not have the right to employ it?
If you assume that people support capital punishment for evil reasons it is no wonder you oppose it but it also seems that you don’t distinguish between vengeance and justice.
Has the church been wrong about Jesus’ message for 20 centuries because that is how long she has supported the right of states to use capital punishment?

St Augustine addresses the core angst here in his letter to Marcellinus the Magistrate more clearly than I can…

1. In your letter you state that some are perplexed by the question, “Why this God, who is proved to be the God also of the Old Testament, is pleased with new sacrifices after having rejected the ancient ones. For they allege that nothing can be corrected but that which is proved to have been previously not rightly done, or that what has once been done rightly ought not to be altered in the very least: that which has been rightly done, they say, cannot be changed without wrong.” I quote these words from your letter. Were I disposed to give a copious reply to this objection, time would fail me long before I had exhausted the instances in which the processes of nature itself and the works of men undergo changes according to the circumstances of the time, while, at the same time, there is nothing mutable in the plan or principle by which these changes are regulated. Of these I may mention a few, that, stimulated by them, your wakeful observation may run, as it were, from them to many more of the same kind. Does not summer follow winter, the temperature gradually increasing in warmth? Do not night and day in turn succeed each other? How often do our own lives experience changes! Boyhood departing, never to return, gives place to youth; manhood, destined itself to continue only for a season, takes in turn the place of youth; and old age, closing the term of manhood, is itself closed by death. All these things are changed, but the plan of Divine Providence which appoints these successive changes is not changed. I suppose, also, that the principles of agriculture are not changed when the farmer appoints a different work to be done in summer from that which he had ordered in winter. He who rises in the morning, after resting by night, is not supposed to have changed the plan of his life. The schoolmaster gives to the adult different tasks from those which he was accustomed to prescribe to the scholar in his boyhoo; his teaching, consistent throughout, changes the instruction when the lesson is changed, without itself being changed.

1. The eminent physician of our own times, Vindicianus, being consulted by an invalid, prescribed for his disease what seemed to him a suitable remedy at that time; health was restored by its use. Some years afterwards, finding himself troubled again with the same disorder, the patient supposed that the same remedy should be applied; but its application made his illness worse. In astonishment, he again returns to the physician, and tells him what had happened; whereupon he, being a man of very quick penetration, answered: “The reason of your having been harmed by this application is, that I did not order it;” upon which all who heard the remark and did not know the man supposed that he was trusting not in the art of medicine, but in some forbidden supernatural power. When he was afterwards questioned by some who were amazed at his words, he explained what they had not understood, namely, that he would not have prescribed the same remedy to the patient at the age which he had now attained. While, therefore, the principle and methods of art remain unchanged, the change which, in accordance with them, may be made necessary by the difference of times is very great.

1. To say then, that what has once been done rightly must in no respect whatever be changed, is to affirm what is not true. For if the circumstances of time which occasioned anything be changed, true reason in almost all cases demands that what had been in the former circumstances rightly done, be now so altered that, although they say that it is not rightly done if it be changed, truth, on the contrary, protests that it is not rightly done unless it be changed; because, at both times, it will be rightly done if the difference be regulated according to the difference in the times. For just as in the cases of different persons it may happen that, at the same moment, one man may do with impunity what another man may not, because of a difference not in the thing done but in the person who does it, so in the case of one and the same person at different times, that which was duty formerly is not duty now, not because the person is different from his former self, but because the time at which he does it is different.

newadvent.org/fathers/1102138.htm

 

[Ender]

St Augustine addresses the core angst here in his letter to Marcellinus the Magistrate more clearly than I can…

That’s a fine citation but how are we to apply it? Surely Augustine cannot mean that literally everything is open to change as that would deny the church’s teaching on infallibility, but if some things are changeable and others are not how are we to know which is which? The problem with applying a general concept to particular case is in explaining why it is appropriate to do so. If there are no standards for its application then everyone could justifiably say the church is wrong on … whatever … and they’ll stick to their position until the church comes around to their way of thinking.

This goes back to my earlier comment about finding a particular argument disturbing. As I said, if it is true that the church’s position on capital punishment should have changed as it did then there should be a good argument to explain the change. Where is that explanation? I’m also a bit confused as to your position. I thought earlier you felt that the church did not change her position yet here you present Augustine’s argument about how things can change over time.

Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

As I said, if it is true that the church’s position on capital punishment should have changed as it did then there should be a good argument to explain the change.

Exactly the conclusion I’ve reached after studying this issue. Without a major, well documented argument in the form of either a papal encyclical or some other form of Vatican study, changing 2,000 years of history and teaching on this issue cannot be justified.

At this point we have the last three popes, including Francis, mentioning it should be abolished, and a couple of popes long ago were also against it, contrasted with all of the other popes and the traditional teaching supporting it, hardly enough to signify a change in doctrine.

 

[Ender]

Exactly the conclusion I’ve reached after studying this issue. Without a major, well documented argument in the form of either a papal encyclical or some other form of Vatican study, changing 2,000 years of history and teaching on this issue cannot be justified.

I don’t believe changing doctrines on this issue can be justified and I don’t believe it has happened. As I’ve said, if 2267 is prudential (which appears the likeliest explanation) then there is no doctrinal question involved.

At this point we have the last three popes, including Francis, mentioning it should be abolished, and a couple of popes long ago were also against it, contrasted with all of the other popes and the traditional teaching supporting it, hardly enough to signify a change in doctrine.

The last three popes were (are) clearly opposed to using capital punishment. Augustine expressed his opposition to its use, but they all recognize that a state is morally justified in applying it. In every case it appears that their opposition was based on practical considerations, not moral ones.

Ender

 

[livingwordunity]

The same ones who argue that capital punishment should be absolutely abolished will also be the ones arguing to set them free.

How do you leap to that conclusion? I for one believe there is a role for imprisonment - especially for those deemed dangerous to the community.

I was speaking in general terms.

That’s just silly. You’re suggesting that the Church will be arguing to set all prisoners free?

To clarify, I was referring to leftist political activist groups. Show me a leftist political activist group that is against capitol punishment, and I’ll show you a group that wants to set prisoners free. An example is leftist political activist groups want to set Guantánamo Bay prisoners free.

 

[LongingSoul]

That’s a fine citation but how are we to apply it? Surely Augustine cannot mean that literally everything is open to change as that would deny the church’s teaching on infallibility, but if some things are changeable and others are not how are we to know which is which?

We can be confident firstly that Gods eternal law is accessible to mankind through his natural inclinations and reason. To that end we can trust the Magisterium and to be open to the role the laity play in the Magisterium. It’s not like anyone can just say ‘ok I’m changing doctrine now’, but the laity can and has spoken with the authority of the Holy Spirit before. I think on one of these threads I gave the example of the institution of the Immaculate Conception. That came through the worship of the laity in Europe who were increasingly giving the birth of Mary and her immaculate nature greater honour. Thomas Aquinas wasn’t convinced of this development and consistently argued against this stainless nature of Mary. The Council of Trent declined to institute the dogma on the objections of Aquinas. That didn’t stop the increasing devotion and of course the Church discerned the work of the Holy Spirit in it and finally declared that Mary was ‘preserved immune from all stain of original sin’.

The death penalty as a ‘judicial precept’, has been gradually abandoned by the world for a long time. No Christian country still has it on their books apart from the US. Places like Costa Rica and Venezuela, which are culturally Catholic, rejected it from their justice systems as far back as the mid 1800’s.

The problem with applying a general concept to particular case is in explaining why it is appropriate to do so. If there are no standards for its application then everyone could justifiably say the church is wrong on … whatever … and they’ll stick to their position until the church comes around to their way of thinking.
This goes back to my earlier comment about finding a particular argument disturbing. As I said, if it is true that the church’s position on capital punishment should have changed as it did then there should be a good argument to explain the change. Where is that explanation?

But we can see how things go basically through the development of *natural ‘doctrines’. * Say for example the place fire had in a primitive society. It would be understandable for them to say “Fire has been given to us by the gods to cook our meat with, therefore fire has a sacred and fundamental place in our life. It must be used for all time”. Compare that to today where we cook using electricity and microwave (and goodness knows what else). Through developing science we now realise that it is not ‘fire’ but ‘heat’ which is the fundamental component in cooking. Of course that was implicit to the ‘doctrine’ of cooking before, but just wasn’t specifically addressed since there were no alternatives that would illuminate that fact as there are today. Few people today have open flame in their lives to fulfil any basic functions and as a matter of fact there are some very stringent regulations about its use in domestic situations.

Perhaps in thinking that Genesis 9:6 was strictly the ‘Institution of the Death Penalty’ we are giving it a ‘sacred nature’ it never had. In fact, in todays environment, it could actually be obscuring the true eternal teaching of Gen 9:6 that blood is the sacred sign of life.

I’m also a bit confused as to your position. I thought earlier you felt that the church did not change her position yet here you present Augustine’s argument about how things can change over time.

Augustine distinguished between what was mutable and what was immutable, in order that the essence of the doctrine was honoured at all times. That’s my position too.

 

[Ender]

We can be confident firstly that Gods eternal law is accessible to mankind through his natural inclinations and reason.

If God’s law is eternal then it is not open to change. This is what the church teaches: morality is constant and does not change with time and place.

To that end we can trust the Magisterium and to be open to the role the laity play in the Magisterium.

I don’t think I want to go here because this train could get us lost in the wilderness … but I don’t agree that the laity has any role in the Magisterium.

It’s not like anyone can just say ‘ok I’m changing doctrine now’, but the laity can and has spoken with the authority of the Holy Spirit before.

The laity does not and cannot speak with any authority on the question of doctrine.*…the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted **exclusively **to the living teaching office of the Church. *(Dei Verbum 10)

Perhaps in thinking that Genesis 9:6 was strictly the ‘Institution of the Death Penalty’ we are giving it a ‘sacred nature’ it never had. In fact, in todays environment, it could actually be obscuring the true eternal teaching of Gen 9:6 that blood is the sacred sign of life.

How can the environment obscure the meaning of scripture and how reasonable is it to believe that the building of maximum security prisons has suddenly opened the eyes of the church to the true meaning of a passage they had (apparently) been completely misinterpreting for 2000 years? Nor is it reasonable to believe that the phrase “This teaching remains necessary for all time” applies to the explanation of the term “blood.” The definition of an archaic term does not merit a description as an eternal teaching.

Augustine distinguished between what was mutable and what was immutable, in order that the essence of the doctrine was honoured at all times. That’s my position too.

I don’t know how to distinguish between a doctrine and the essence of a doctrine but I asked whether you believe the church’s doctrine on capital punishment had changed. I was looking for a yes or no answer.

Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

… but I don’t agree that the laity has any role in the Magisterium.

Isn’t there a doctrine of laity reception, which could impact the magisterium, as this excerpt from the web notes:

“The main idea your question suggested to me, however, is one which is probably not
even known to the ordinary “good enough” Catholic. In fact, not many priests (and I guess we could even add bishops) know much about the canonical/theological doctrine of “reception.” In the present post conciliar church the heavy emphasis on central authority and papal overlordship gives the notion of reception particular importance.

“Scripture and the experience of the early church gave prominence to the need for local churches and even for individuals to give free assent to that which God has revealed. Belief cannot be coerced. Vatican II recognized this in its beautiful statement: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power” (Religious Freedom, #1). Reception is thus the act by which the Christian recognizes and freely accepts God’s word and its truth. It is apparent that reception, at its profoundest level, is an essentially moral act of the human conscience. It is the highest exercise of personal responsibility.

“Reception applies not only to matters of faith but also to demands for obedience to law. Clear canonical doctrine holds that if a law is enacted which, in fact, the faithful never recognize as conducive to their Christian well-being or to the welfare of the Christian community, the law simply fails to achieve its binding power and lacks validity. It never rises to the status of true law because the essential ingredient of reception is lacking.

“Thus, there is a profound sense in which Christians do have a kind of “vote.” Indeed, it is more than a mere vote because it carries with it a moral note that indicates the law or doctrine in question is in conflict with Christian faith. It is not the pope or bishops alone who are bearers of the divine presence in the church. The Holy Spirit manifests itself in the entire body of the faithful and indeed in the “lowliest” member, as St. Benedict suggested in his rule.

“Individuals, including pope and bishop, make mistakes and the only way to correct these and prevent them from doing serious harm to the church is the exercise of personal responsibility on the part of each member of the faithful. By refusing to assent to or obey what is not in accord with the Gospel, the lay person is performing a most important service to the body of Christ.”

Retrieved July 15, 2013 from astro.temple.edu/~arcc/rights21.htm

 

[Ender]

Isn’t there a doctrine of laity reception, which could impact the magisterium, as this excerpt from the web notes:…

I think we’re talking about different things. It is surely true that the individual must be free to give or withhold assent. Without such freedom he could not be held accountable for his choices, but the freedom to choose has nothing to do with whether what is chosen is moral. Regarding the concept of “reception” (as I understand it from what you presented) I think this requires careful analysis. You could easily make the case that since the large majority of Catholics have not accepted the teaching on contraception it has not been “received” and therefore is not valid. On the other hand, if you’re speaking about the reception of prudential judgments then I have no problem at all with that concept. I am highly suspicious of the idea that doctrine gets voted on in a “Who wants X to be doctrine, raise you hand” sort of way.

By refusing to assent to or obey what is not in accord with the Gospel, the lay person is performing a most important service to the body of Christ.”

As one who has disagreed with the last three popes on the matter of capital punishment I find this comment reassuring. (But then as I have repeatedly said, I consider their positions to be prudential rather than doctrinal.)

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

If God’s law is eternal then it is not open to change. This is what the church teaches: morality is constant and does not change with time and place.

The Church also teaches that doctrine is open to developing and unfolding over time.

I don’t think I want to go here because this train could get us lost in the wilderness … but I don’t agree that the laity has any role in the Magisterium.
The laity does not and cannot speak with any authority on the question of doctrine.*…the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted **exclusively ***to the living teaching office of the Church. (Dei Verbum 10)

While being aware that invoking Sensus Fidei has been a sly tactic by extreme liberal Catholics leading Pope Benedict to stress that “It is unthinkable to mention it (sensus fidei) in order to challenge the teachings of the Magisterium” he says…

**"Among the criteria of Catholic theology, the document mentions the attention that theologians must pay to sensus fidelium. It is very useful that your Commission has also focused on this issue which is of particular importance for the reflection on the faith and life of the Church. The Second Vatican Council, while confirming the specific and irreplaceable role of Magisterium, stressed, however, that the whole People of God participates in Christ’s prophetic office, thus fulfilling the inspired desire expressed by Moses, ” If only all the people of the LORD were prophets! If only the LORD would bestow his spirit on them! “(Num 11:29).

The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium thus teaches us on the subject: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. “(n. 12).

This gift, the sensus fidei, constitutes in the believer a kind of supernatural instinct that has a connatural life with the same object of faith. It is a criterion for discerning whether or not a truth belongs to the deposit of the living apostolic tradition. It also has a propositional value because the Holy Spirit does not cease to speak to the Churches and lead them to the whole truth."**cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/1811/Pope-Clarifies-The-Oft-Cited-%E2%80%9CSensus-Fidei%E2%80%9D.aspx

How can the environment obscure the meaning of scripture and how reasonable is it to believe that the building of maximum security prisons has suddenly opened the eyes of the church to the true meaning of a passage they had (apparently) been completely misinterpreting for 2000 years?

As I’ve continued to say, there is no ‘sudden’ about it. You are seeming to fall prey to an insular experience of capital punishment when you think this. In my experience, capital punishment was abolished in Queensland nearly 100 years ago and the Church in Australia has never lobbied for re-instatement or criticised the State for its abolition. I have never been taught that we as a country are outside of Church teaching for our rejection of capital punishment. Most other Christian countries in the world (bar one) are in the same position.

Nor is it reasonable to believe that the phrase “This teaching remains necessary for all time” applies to the explanation of the term “blood.” The definition of an archaic term does not merit a description as an eternal teaching.

The fact that the Vatican State abolished the death penalty itself in the 60’s makes explicit that capital punishment as a judicial precept, is a discipline serving the doctrine, rather than the sum total of the doctrine which renders the inviolability of human life an eternal precept.

I don’t know how to distinguish between a doctrine and the essence of a doctrine but I asked whether you believe the church’s doctrine on capital punishment had changed. I was looking for a yes or no answer.

Lets put it this way. The Church’s doctrine of the inviolability of human life revealed by God to Noah, has not and will never change. The practice of capital punishment, the judicial precept created to serve that end, no longer serves that end unless it is the only way of protecting the community from an aggressor. I have never seen in all the writings on capital punishment that I’ve read, the term ‘doctrine of capital punishment’.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

I have never seen in all the writings on capital punishment that I’ve read, the term ‘doctrine of capital punishment’.

The doctrine is an eye for an eye, embodied throughout the Old Law, which Christ stated he had not come to change, and in at least two incidents he called for death for sinners, for Judas (Matt. 26:24)and for those who would scandalize children (Matt. 18:6).

 

[LongingSoul]

The doctrine is an eye for an eye, embodied throughout the Old Law, which Christ stated he had not come to change, and in at least two incidents he called for death for sinners, for Judas (Matt. 26:24)and for those who would scandalize children (Matt. 18:6).

Jesus was born into the time of the Old Law but came, as He Himself said, as a fulfillment of the Law. With regard to “eye for an eye” He said the following…

Matt 5:38-42 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

How this can be understood even then as a development to ‘fulfil’ is somewhat explained by Thomas Aquinas addressing the question of ‘whether the moral precepts of the Old Law justified man?’ …

Objection 1: It would seem that the moral precepts of the Old Law justified man. Because the Apostle says (Rom. 2:13): “For not the hearers of the Law are justified before God, but the doers of the Law shall be justified.” But the doers of the Law are those who fulfil the precepts of the Law. Therefore the fulfilling of the precepts of the Law was a cause of justification.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (2 Cor. 3:6): “The letter killeth”: which, according to Augustine (De Spir. et Lit. xiv), refers even to the moral precepts. Therefore the moral precepts did not cause justice.

I answer that, Just as “healthy” is said properly and first of that which is possessed of health, and secondarily of that which is a sign or a safeguard of health; so justification means first and properly the causing of justice; while secondarily and improperly, as it were, it may denote a sign of justice or a disposition thereto. If justice be taken in the last two ways, it is evident that it was conferred by the precepts of the Law; in so far, to wit, as they disposed men to the justifying grace of Christ, which they also signified, because as Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 24), “even the life of that people foretold and foreshadowed Christ.”

sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum238.htm

The caution being that a strictly literal interpretation of the law, without the action being primarily possessed of moral health, may not cause justice.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

About Matt 5: 38-42, Augustine taught in the Catena Aurea: “For that retribution which tends to correction is not here forbidden, for such is indeed a part of mercy; nor does such intention hinder that he, who seeks to correct another, is not at the same time ready himself to take more at his hands. But it is required that he should inflict the punishment to whom the power is given by the course of things, and with such a mind as the father has to a child in correcting him whom it is impossible he should hate. And holy men have punished some sins with death, in order that a wholesome fear might be struck into the living, and so that not his death, but the likelihood of increase of his sin had he lived, was the hurt of the criminal.”

And Aquinas, following Augustine taught: “When, however, they fall into very great wickedness, and become incurable, we ought no longer to show them friendliness. It is for this reason that both Divine and human laws command such like sinners to be put to death, because there is greater likelihood of their harming others than of their mending their ways. Nevertheless the judge puts this into effect, not out of hatred for the sinners, but out of the love of charity, by reason of which he prefers the public good to the life of the individual. Moreover the death inflicted by the judge profits the sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is thus deprived of the power to sin any more.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 25, A. 6, Obj. 2)

 

[Ender]

The Church also teaches that doctrine is open to developing and unfolding over time.

This is certainly true but development cannot include a change of direction. Development is a fuller explanation of what is already acknowledged.

The Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium thus teaches us on the subject: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. “(n. 12).

Do you take this to mean that the church’s teaching on contraception, which has clearly been rejected by the majority of Catholics (at least in the US and probably most other nations) is not doctrine? Either the doctrine is flawed, or the faithful can err, or this passage is not being interpreted properly. Which do you believe it to be?

As I’ve continued to say, there is no ‘sudden’ about it.

As most others admit, in the life of the church the change has indeed been sudden.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. (Bishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)

You are seeming to fall prey to an insular experience of capital punishment when you think this.

Since I have never made any comment regarding capital punishment as it is in the US and have relied entirely on church documents this charge is not accurate.

The Church’s doctrine of the inviolability of human life revealed by God to Noah, has not and will never change. The practice of capital punishment, the judicial precept created to serve that end, no longer serves that end unless it is the only way of protecting the community from an aggressor.

The problem with this explanation is that God did not reveal the doctrine of the inviolability of human life to Noah, the idea that man was made in the image of God appears in the creation sequence back at the creation of Adam (Gn 1:27). This fact is repeated in Gn 9:6 as an explanation, not a revelation.

I have never seen in all the writings on capital punishment that I’ve read, the term ‘doctrine of capital punishment’.

That is what is meant by: “*The traditional teaching of the Church …”

*Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

This is certainly true but development cannot include a change of direction. Development is a fuller explanation of what is already acknowledged.

I think the ‘changes’ here serve to highlight the fact that the practice of capital punishment is not a doctrinal institution in and of itself. It has served the doctrine by serving the common good and the safety of society. The fact that all Christian countries bar one, have gradually abandoned its use since the 1800’s as not in keeping with the dignity of humanity, indicates that this development is not sudden. Some people had a similar dilemma when the status of Limbo of the Infants was abandoned and then dropped from the CCC in 1992. Limbo was never intrinsic to the doctrine of original sin, but served it. Augustine had taught that all unbaptised infants go to Hell. Limbo tempered that interpretation, with an institution where unbaptised infants lived a Heaven like eternity but without the possibility of seeing God. It served the doctrine but not many holy, faithful Mothers of lost infants really conceived of an idea that their little ones were anywhere other than in Jesus arms. Doctrine reflects that in entrusting unbaptised infants to the mercy of God. Quite a big ‘change’ but not of the doctrine of Original Sin.

Do you take this to mean that the church’s teaching on contraception, which has clearly been rejected by the majority of Catholics (at least in the US and probably most other nations) is not doctrine? Either the doctrine is flawed, or the faithful can err, or this passage is not being interpreted properly. Which do you believe it to be?

Contraception is clearly a deception of the devil and is intrinsically evil. It is the most jarring departure from natural law imaginable. It has the spiritual nature of a contagious disease similar to ant-Semitism and racism that have marred the Christian mindset at different times of its history. So apples and oranges.

As most others admit, in the life of the church the change has indeed been sudden.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. (Bishop Wilton Gregory, 2008)
Since I have never made any comment regarding capital punishment as it is in the US and have relied entirely on church documents this charge is not accurate.

Wilton Gregory is a US Bishop so his Catholic experience of capital punishment is similar to yours. The new wording that the Church is using to address the death penalty will mean a big change to the US judicial norm and Christian mindset, but to all other Christian countries, the norm is undisturbed, unchanged. The theology has been developing through the arteries of Catholicism prior to the explicit acknowledgments which have been manifesting since Vatican 2.

The Church’s doctrine of the inviolability of human life revealed by God to Noah, has not and will never change. The practice of capital punishment, the judicial precept created to serve that end, no longer serves that end unless it is the only way of protecting the community from an aggressor.

The problem with this explanation is that God did not reveal the doctrine of the inviolability of human life to Noah, the idea that man was made in the image of God appears in the creation sequence back at the creation of Adam (Gn 1:27). This fact is repeated in Gn 9:6 as an explanation, not a revelation.

Ender

Genesis 9: 5-6 was a revelation concerning the sanctity of life and is the passage from which we derive the Judeo-Christian concept of the sanctity of human life. In that sense it prefigured the immense gift to mankind of Christs shedding of His own blood for the atonement of mankind’s sins and ultimate justification before God. That blood must be shed in atonement for the violation of man, is forevermore covered by Christs atoning blood except if the safety of society continues to be threatened by an aggressor. Then the State can have a duty and justification for killing a man. The justification of avenging spilt blood to atone that was primary to the Old Laws effect, is now satisfied by Christs death on the Cross for us. We are primarily responsible to the common good in pursuing justice, which does not exclude recourse to the just death of a ‘pestiferous’ criminal.