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

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by CrossofChrist
This quote seems to sum up the view of the Church today, and I doubt anyone will take St. Augustine as not representing the traditional view of the Church.

That quote comes from one of the many letters St Augustine sent to various magistrates conveying the Catholic view of punishment and the death penalty. This one to Donatus who was presiding over the trial of Donatists who had killed some Christians…

**"In fact, there is only one thing of which we are much afraid in your administration of justice, viz., lest perchance, seeing that every injury done by impious and ungrateful men against the Christian society is a more serious and heinous crime than if it had been done against others, you should on this ground consider that it ought to be punished with a severity corresponding to the enormity of the crime, and not with the moderation which is suitable to Christian forbearance. We beseech you, in the name of Jesus Christ, not to act in this manner. For we do not seek to revenge ourselves in this world; nor ought the things which we suffer to reduce us to such distress of mind as to leave no room in our memory for the precepts in regard to this which we have received from Him for whose truth and in whose name we suffer; we “love our enemies,” and we “pray for them.” Matthew 5:44 It is not their death, but their deliverance from error, that we seek to accomplish by the help of the terror of judges and of laws, whereby they may be preserved from falling under the penalty of eternal judgment; we do not wish either to see the exercise of discipline towards them neglected, or, on the other hand, to see them subjected to the severer punishments which they deserve. Do you, therefore, check their sins in such a way, that the sinners may be spared to repent of their sins.

1. We beg you, therefore, when you are pronouncing judgment in cases affecting the Church, how wicked soever the injuries may be which you shall ascertain to have been attempted or inflicted on the Church, to forget that you have the power of capital punishment, and not to forget our request. Nor let it appear to you an unimportant matter and beneath your notice, my most beloved and honoured son, that we ask you to spare the lives of the men on whose behalf we ask God to grant them repentance. For even granting that we ought never to deviate from a fixed purpose of overcoming evil with good, let your own wisdom take this also into consideration, that no person beyond those who belong to the Church is at pains to bring before you cases pertaining to her interests. If, therefore, your opinion be, that death must be the punishment of men convicted of these crimes, you will deter us from endeavouring to bring anything of this kind before your tribunal; and this being discovered, they will proceed with more unrestrained boldness to accomplish speedily our destruction, when upon us is imposed and enjoined the necessity of choosing rather to suffer death at their hands, than to bring them to death by accusing them at your bar. Disdain not, I beseech you, to accept this suggestion, petition, and entreaty from me. For I do not think that you are unmindful that I might have great boldness in addressing you, even were I not a bishop, and even though your rank were much above what you now hold."**- St Augustine Letter 100

Augustine as Bishop of Hippo, made a mission of strongly opposing the application of the death penalty during his life. Some excerpts from his letters are as follows copies of which can be sourced on Catholic Encyclopedia New Advent.

In his letter to the magistrate Macedonius he writes…

“In no way, then, do we approve of the sins that we want to be corrected, nor do we want the wrongdoing to go unpunished because we find it pleasing. Rather, having compassion for the person and detesting the sin or crime, the more we are displeased by the sin the less we want the sinful person to perish without having been corrected. For it is easy and natural to hate evil persons because they are evil, but it is rare and holy to love those same persons because they are human beings. Thus, in one person you at the same time both blame the sin and approve of the nature, and for this reason you must justly hate the sin because it defiles the nature that you love. He, therefore, who punishes the crime in order to set free the human being is bound to another person as a companion not in injustice but in humanity. There is no other place for correcting our conduct save in this life. For after this life each person will have what he earned for himself in this life. And so, out of love for the human race we are compelled to intercede on behalf of the guilty lest they end this life through punishment so that, when it is ended, they cannot have an end to their punishment.” (Letter 153 to Macedonius, 1.3.)

…continued…

 

[LongingSoul]

Again in a sermon addressing the topic he says…

**“So do not condemn people to death, or while you are attacking the sin you will destroy the man. Do not condemn to death, and there will be someone there who can repent. Do not have a person put to death and you will have someone who can be reformed. As a man having this kind of love for men in your heart, be a judge of the earth. Love terrifying them if you like, but still go on loving. I don’t deny that penalties must be applied. I don’t forbid it. But let it be done in a spirit of love a spirit of caring, a spirit of reforming.” **(Sermon 13.8.)

In a letter to Marcellinus, the imperial commissioner charged with hearing the case of some Donatist clerics accused of murdering a Catholic Priest and torturing another… Augustine is again moved by Christian principles in asking for clemency from the death penalty.

“I appeal through the mercy of Christ the Lord to the faith that you have in Christ that you not do this or allow it to happen at all. For, although we can deny any responsibility for the death of those who are seen to have been handed over for judgment, not due to the accusations of ours, but because of the indictment of those who have charge of the defense of the public peace, we still do not want the sufferings of the servants of God to be avenged by punishments equal to those sufferings, as by the law requiring an eye for an eye. It is not that we would prevent criminals from losing the freedom to commit crimes, but we want it rather to be sufficient either that, alive and with no part of the body mutilated, they be taken from their restlessness and steered to the peace of good health by the restraints of law or that they be assigned to some useful work away from their evil works. This is, of course, called condemnation, but who does not understand that it should be called a benefit rather than a punishment when their bold fierceness is restrained and the remedy of repentance is not withdrawn?” (Letter 133 to Marcellinus, 1.1.)

In another letter to Marcellinus, Augustine writes for clemency of criminals …“punishment of those people, though they have confessed to such great crimes, may not involve the death penalty both on account of our conscience and for the sake of emphasizing Catholic gentleness.” (Letter 139 to Marcelinus, 1)

“We love our enemies and pray for them. Hence, we desire that, by making use of judges and laws that cause fear, they be corrected, not killed, so that they do not fall into the punishments of eternal condemnation. We do not want discipline to be neglected in their regard or the punishment they deserve to be applied. Repress their sins, therefore, in such a way that those who repent having sinned may still exist. . . . It is not, my honorable and most beloved son, something unworthy or contemptible when we ask you that they, whom we ask the Lord to correct, not be put to death.” (Letter 100 to Donatus, 1-2.)

In the case of the murderous Donatist Cleric, Augustine writes in explanation of his pleas for clemency… **“I as a Christian beg the judge and as a bishop warn a Christian….

If, then, there were no other means established to curb the malice of the wicked, extreme necessity might perhaps urge that such men be put to death, though, in our view, if no milder punishment could be imposed on them, we would prefer that they be released rather than the sufferings of our brothers be avenged by the shedding of their blood.”** (Letter 134 to Apringius)

While Augustine accepted the moral lawfulness of applying the death penalty justly, his Christianity moved his tireless urgings to clemency except “If, then, there were no other means established to curb the malice of the wicked, extreme necessity” justifies its use.

The position of the Church today, is well and truly in keeping with the Catholic heart along the Churches journey through the ages.

 

[LongingSoul]

As you may know, I think it even worse than that.

The Church has no historical position to support either EV of CC and 2267, wrongly, stated that they did, apparently, with no citations or evidence as support.

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” ." (7)

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”(7)

The fact that such teachings does not exist is a real problem for the Church and this radical change, which appears to have sprung out of very thin air.

Even if such teachings did exist, 2267 could hardly be more misleading.

The traditional teachings of the Church neither exclude recourse to the death penalty nor so restrict it as to make it, virtually, useless, as 2267 imagines. Much more often, biblical instruction and tradition insist on the death penalty being imposed, describes those many sins/crimes for which it shall be imposed and, otherwise, reviews the legitimacy of the death penalty.

The additional important problem (of many), is that the death penalty offers more protection for the innocent and therefore greater defense of society and thus, the Church’s new position, not only has no historical teachings for support, it also sacrifices more innocent lives.

I appears the first is a doctrine problem and the second a prudential judgement error.

Kevin L. Flannery S.J. - Capital Punishment and the Law – 2007 (30 pp)
Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University
(Rome); Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and
Culture (University of Notre Dame)

By the power and protection of the Holy Spirit, the Church will never teach error in the matter of faith and doctrine. Since Vatican II the Church has increasingly subjected the matter of the death penalty to illumination and it has been abolished in all Christian countries bar one. In the US, the Bishops in unity with the Vatican have called for it to be ended there too.

** “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith”** (Lumen Gentium 25).

I’m personally not inclined to entertain any argument which says that the Churchs teachings, the Popes and Bishops, many of whom are excellent theologians and philosophers, are wrong or in error.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

By the power and protection of the Holy Spirit, the Church will never teach error in the matter of faith and doctrine. Since Vatican II the Church has increasingly subjected the matter of the death penalty to illumination and it has been abolished in all Christian countries bar one. In the US, the Bishops in unity with the Vatican have called for it to be ended there too.

I’m personally not inclined to entertain any argument which says that the Churchs teachings, the Popes and Bishops, many of whom are excellent theologians and philosophers, are wrong or in error.

What Christian (most being Protestant) countries do has nothing to do with Catholic teaching, and regardless of the bishops in various countries calling for the abolition of capital punishment along with the rather offhand comments of the last three popes (which again I see as being based on their mistaken belief that current penal technology has the capacity to protect the innocent from the unjust aggressor) it cannot overturn the current catechism without another ecumenical council and another catechism—or at the very least, without a substantial magisterial development documenting the doctrinal shift , including papal encyclicals and documents from the CDF—a shift I cannot imagine happening considering the two millennia of support for capital punishment, beginning with Christ.

And, as you should know, Canon Law compels us, the laity, to correct Church leaders, when they may be wrong due to a lack of expertise, which in the case of the criminal justice system and the realities surrounding the use of capital punishment, hardly any of them have, and most of those who do, support capital punishment.

 

[LongingSoul]

What Christian (most being Protestant) countries do has nothing to do with Catholic teaching, and regardless of the bishops in various countries calling for the abolition of capital punishment along with the rather offhand comments of the last three popes (which again I see as being based on their mistaken belief that current penal technology has the capacity to protect the innocent from the unjust aggressor) it cannot overturn the current catechism without another ecumenical council and another catechism—or at the very least, without a substantial magisterial development documenting the doctrinal shift , including papal encyclicals and documents from the CDF—a shift I cannot imagine happening considering the two millennia of support for capital punishment, beginning with Christ.

And, as you should know, Canon Law compels us, the laity, to correct Church leaders, when they may be wrong due to a lack of expertise, which in the case of the criminal justice system and the realities surrounding the use of capital punishment, hardly any of them have, and most of those who do, support capital punishment.

It’s not necessary for anyone to have practical expertise to give moral guidance and it’d be wrong for the Church to withhold or water down moral guidance because they couldn’t envisage it being implemented.

The Church will never assign capital punishment an ‘intrinsic evil’. No one is suggesting that, since common sense and natural law assume circumstances where the common good would necessitate it. If a ship load of passengers became marooned on an island and had to devise a community from scratch… it’s forseeable that pestiferous persons who threatened the common good and could not be contrained humanely, would warrant such a last resort. But there is a point where reliance on one solution can actually keep people trapped in a less than suitable framework and prevent them striving for a better way. Take for example how communism was abandoned in Germany and Russia. The commitment to change comes before the change can happen. The change from a centrally controlled financial system to a market based system looked ugly and messy and led many Russians to opine for the old ways back… but time and shifting worldviews has seen things move forward and a growth of prosperity and optimism. If you are saying that the penal system isn’t ready yet… it never will be unless the commitment to change the capital punishment mentality happens first. That logic is flawed and well known for keeping people trapped in primitive ways. It’s the same with your system of measuments. Pretty much the whole of the world has embraced the more expedient metric system and work in unison with each other. Why won’t the States convert too? Perhaps that mentality that fears change is at work there too? Even after huge bungles like a NASA Mars mission spectacularly failed because the software at the ground control at NASA was still using the old imperial measuring system to control equipment that was all metric based, a change still hasn’t happened.

So the argument that the penal system is not good enough to support the abandonment of capital punishment, is a non argument really.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

The Church will never assign capital punishment an ‘intrinsic evil’. No one is suggesting that, since common sense and natural law assume circumstances where the common good would necessitate it. If a ship load of passengers became marooned on an island and had to devise a community from scratch… it’s forseeable that pestiferous persons who threatened the common good and could not be contrained humanely, would warrant such a last resort.

So the argument that the penal system is not good enough to support the abandonment of capital punishment, is a non argument really.

I agree, “where the common good would necessitate it” so what are we arguing about?

This is also the position of the Catechism, my guide on this issue, see 2267 “…if this is the only possible way…”

Capital punishment is always a last resort, never a single solution, at least not in America.

I’ve never made that argument “that the penal system is not good enough” about the penal system.

Many who oppose capital punishment say that the penal system is adequate to protect us from the unjust aggressor, so we don’t need capital punishment, see 2267, last paragraph.

 

[farmersboy]

*American justice scandal: FBI could be at fault in 27 death row cases

Unprecedented federal review rules that the FBI may have exaggerated forensics in case of Willie Jerome Manning – a decision that puts other convictions in doubt…*

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/american-justice-scandal-fbi-could-be-at-fault-in-27-death-row-cases-8718135.html

 

[dudleysharp]

By the power and protection of the Holy Spirit, the Church will never teach error in the matter of faith and doctrine. snip

I’m personally not inclined to entertain any argument which says that the Churchs teachings, the Popes and Bishops, many of whom are excellent theologians and philosophers, are wrong or in error.

I think that is one of the reasons that most are saying it is a problem of prudential judgement, not doctrine, for which we are all at liberty to disagree with the Church.

The arguement is hard to make, I believe, based upon the radical concept that the Church has deemed to change the primary eternal function, justice or redress, and overpower it with a secondary, humanism based concern, defense of society or safety.

That is precisely what we are dealing with. I may wrongly consider that a change in doctrine, but that is whow it appears to me.

Yes, they are current theologians and philosophers, who have been contradicted by Saints, theologians, Popes and Bishops for over 2000 years, inclusive of those from today

And yes, they are philosophers and theologians who, seemingly, have not studied prion security and therefore made an incorrect prudential judgement, in both the EV and CCC and have, therefore, made judgemnts putting more innocents at risk.

Poor indeed.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

The arguement is hard to make, I believe, based upon the radical concept that the Church has deemed to change the primary eternal function, justice or redress, and overpower it with a secondary, humanism based concern, defense of society or safety.

Actually, as I noted in an earlier post, the term redressing as in: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense” (CCC 2266) is a synonym for retribution and justice, so the sentence could just as well have read: “Punishment has the primary aim of justice”, or “Punishment has the primary aim of retribution.”

I think the softer language was a result of bending to liberal Catholics, but the bottom line is that the primary aim has not changed nor has support for capital punishment, it has just been encased in more sensitive language.

Here is a copy of 2266 and 2267 from the Vatican website.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

**2267 ***Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

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

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”*

 

[LongingSoul]

I think that is one of the reasons that most are saying it is a problem of prudential judgement, not doctrine, for which we are all at liberty to disagree with the Church.

The prudential judgement concerns the prudence or imprudence of applying the death judgement in sentencing and to disagree with the ability of the prison system to incapacitate a dangerous criminal, is a valid point to disagree on according to Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement to that effect.

The arguement is hard to make, I believe, based upon the radical concept that the Church has deemed to change the primary eternal function, justice or redress, and overpower it with a secondary, humanism based concern, defense of society or safety.

That is precisely what we are dealing with. I may wrongly consider that a change in doctrine, but that is how it appears to me.

One of the aspects that I’ve tried to inject into this debate is my own experience of the use of capital punishment as an Australian. In my lifetime, my parents and my grandparents lifetimes, the State has not allowed for capital punishment in sentencing. It has never been presented to me as the severest penalty on a continuum of sentencing and by its abolition, it’s been defined as an extreme and separate judgement for a special purpose. Do you see what I’m trying to say? It is a ‘punishment’ but with a dedicated purpose made legal by that dedicated purpose. That dedicated purpose is not ‘eye for an eye’ justice. It is so that man might know the true sacredness of the human creature in Gods eyes. The Law giving capital punishment its purpose comes from Genesis 9 4-6 and the primary scope of Gen 9 4-6 is to reveal the absolute sacredness of human life. Lifeblood is the sacred sign of life. The scope of this verse and chapter is to establish for us the value and inviolability of human life. Not to establish the primary principle of just punishments which is established in other places. Capital punishment is primarily justified by its role in revealing the sacredness of life and if by its misuse it denigrates the sacredness of man’s life in some way or another, we are obliged to forbear from its use. In our society where man has taken to himself the authority over the life and death of human beings in various ways, the experience of authority over life and death in capital punishment must reflect this toxic attitude also. The State who administers justice also administers the permissions to terminate life in other areas. In uprooting the cockle with capital punishment we are uprooting the wheat whose roots are entangled with the weeds.

"Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death." -Summa Theologica II ofII Q64 Art2

I’m suggesting that your experience of capital punishment as an American, is pretty much (although sometimes sporadic)… continual, the opposition to it seeming to be represented by unchristian and ungodly motives. However, that’s not how it is for the rest of the Christian cultures in the world and the position of the Magisterium contradicts that also. The distinction between capital punishment and ‘bloodless’ punishment is made constantly in the continual teaching of the Church. In posts 181 and 182, I’ve quoted St Augustine conveying the Catholic attitude towards capital punishment to the Magistrates of the day. It’s very much an attitude of forbearance, separate from the general obligation of justice to punish criminals. He stresses a strong leaning towards love through mercy and optimism for sinners in sparing them the punishment of death. When the Pope describes capital punishment as ‘cruel and unnecessary’… as ’not in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good’ or the ‘dignity of man’, he is affirming capital punishment as a specially purposed sentence tied primarily to revealing and honouring the sacredness and inviolability of human life. His comments only seem to usurp the primary scope of punishment, (which would be a change of doctrine if that were so) because of how you have perceived capital punishment as a sentence on a continuum of sentencing, all fed by the same veins and arteries, rather than an instrument that serves justice in its own specific way.

 

[LongingSoul]

Actually, as I noted in an earlier post, the term redressing as in: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense” (CCC 2266) is a synonym for retribution and justice, so the sentence could just as well have read: “Punishment has the primary aim of justice”, or “Punishment has the primary aim of retribution.”

I think the softer language was a result of bending to liberal Catholics, but the bottom line is that the primary aim has not changed nor has support for capital punishment, it has just been encased in more sensitive language.

Popes John Paul and Benedict were definitely not benders to liberal Catholics. They have been the Popes more than any others who’ve been charged with addressing the “culture of death” revealed by abortion, euthanasia, youth suicide/depression/drugs, artificial contraception and they stress these as the major factors behind the increasing urgency to abolish the death penalty. The authority to defend life to the point of lethal force, has been usurped by the hedonistic ‘right to choose’ factions whose freedom depends on their power over life and death. The cockles have entangled their roots in the roots of the wheat and forbearance is urgently needed in regards to the capital sentence.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Popes John Paul and Benedict were definitely not benders to liberal Catholics.

Actually, all of the popes over the past several decades have used much more sensitive language when addressing controversial subjects and in that sense are bending to liberal sentiments as generally expressed by liberal Catholics; but as I’ve noted in previous posts, this bending has not resulted in fundamental change in the Catholic Church’s traditional support for capital punishment, including the off-the-cuff comments about abolishing it from John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.

 

[LongingSoul]

Actually, all of the popes over the past several decades have used much more sensitive language when addressing controversial subjects and in that sense are bending to liberal sentiments as generally expressed by liberal Catholics; but as I’ve noted in previous posts, this bending has not resulted in fundamental change in the Catholic Church’s traditional support for capital punishment, including the off-the-cuff comments about abolishing it from John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.

I think the whole point of Vatican II was to redress the too impersonal legalistic interpretations of scripture that were killing the spirit of the Law which is a vital component of Christian development. It was one of the things Jesus originally took the scribes and elders to task for.

When you say “the Catholic Church’s traditional support for capital punishment”, it adds to the dissonance since the Catholic Church is not supporting capital punishment today. It’s more true to say the Church traditionally “does not exclude recourse to capital punishment” as an exceptional resort…just as a surgeon does not exclude recourse to amputating a limb that can’t be saved. Amputation is not a solution he’d use for any other purpose than protecting the rest of the body from the effects of an unsavable toxic limb.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

I think the whole point of Vatican II was to redress the too impersonal legalistic interpretations of scripture that were killing the spirit of the Law which is a vital component of Christian development. It was one of the things Jesus originally took the scribes and elders to task for.

When you say “the Catholic Church’s traditional support for capital punishment”, it adds to the dissonance since the Catholic Church is not supporting capital punishment today. It’s more true to say the Church traditionally “does not exclude recourse to capital punishment” as an exceptional resort…just as a surgeon does not exclude recourse to amputating a limb that can’t be saved. Amputation is not a solution he’d use for any other purpose than protecting the rest of the body from the effects of an unsavable toxic limb.

I think the point of Vatican II, as was that of all ecumenical councils, is to reaffirm the faith, and the clarity used to express the faith in times past, has always been updated through ecumenical councils to meet the needs of the times of the particular councils; and conflating Christ’s exhortations to the Pharisees to that process, well, it doesn’t really have anything to do with that.

The sensitive—and often ambiguous—language used in the Catechism is clearly an expression of the Church’s traditional support for capital punishment by the simple words you quote; but other than that I have no argument with your statement here.

 

[dudleysharp]

That quote comes from one of the many letters St Augustine sent to various magistrates conveying the Catholic view of punishment and the death penalty. This one to Donatus who was presiding over the trial of Donatists who had killed some Christians…

snip

…continued…

Yes, but none of those was adopted by the Church, which is why it is stated that the Church had no foundation to change the teachings, even though She said that she did.

It was an error.

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” ." (7)

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”(7)

(7) Kevin L. Flannery S.J. - Capital Punishment and the Law – 2007 (30 pp)
Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University
(Rome); Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and
Culture (University of Notre Dame)

 

[dudleysharp]

Actually, as I noted in an earlier post, the term redressing as in: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense” (CCC 2266) is a synonym for retribution and justice, so the sentence could just as well have read: “Punishment has the primary aim of justice”, or “Punishment has the primary aim of retribution.”

I think the softer language was a result of bending to liberal Catholics, but the bottom line is that the primary aim has not changed nor has support for capital punishment, it has just been encased in more sensitive language.

Here is a copy of 2266 and 2267 from the Vatican website."

As I have detailed, those first 3 paragraphs from 2267 have problems.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Yes, but none of those was adopted by the Church, which is why it is stated that the Church had no foundation to change the teachings, even though She said that she did.

It was an error.

Actually, when the Church states something, according to Church teaching, coming from all of the bishops and the pope in concert—like in the ecumenical council of Vatican II—it cannot be in error, and therefore, the Catechism emanating from Vatican II, cannot be in error, though many theologians may say that it is, and many others will misinterpret it, by saying it does not support capital punishment.

The language may be ambiguous and of a liberal bent—and many conservative Catholics would have preferred the first edition of the Catechism’s version on capital punishment—but it is still quite clear, that the Church’s support for capital punishment has not changed.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Just for reference, here is how it was written in the first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by the Holy See (1992), which said:

Legitimate Defense

2266 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. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.

The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons. Finally punishment has a medicinal value; as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender.

2267 If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. (Catechism #2266-2267)

Holy See. (1992) *Catechism of the Catholic Church *Rome 1st Ed.): Libreria Editrice Vaticana, San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

 

[dudleysharp]

Actually, when the Church states something, according to Church teaching, coming from all of the bishops and the pope in concert—like in the ecumenical council of Vatican II—it cannot be in error, and therefore, the Catechism emanating from Vatican II, cannot be in error, though many theologians may say that it is, and many others will misinterpret it, by saying it does not support capital punishment.

In response to 2267:

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” ." (7)

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”(7)

Kevin L. Flannery S.J. - Capital Punishment and the Law – 2007 (30 pp)
Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University
(Rome); Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and
Culture (University of Notre Dame)
sig=AHIEtbTktNqEN1pDq6bB2GUsYol2dXmUyg

 

[DavidLukenbill]

In response to 2267:

“The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II” ." (7)

“The realm of human affairs is a messy one, full of at least apparent inconsistency and incoherence, and the recent teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment—vitiated, as I intend to show, by errors of historical fact and interpretation—is no exception.”(7)

Kevin L. Flannery S.J. - Capital Punishment and the Law – 2007 (30 pp)
Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University
(Rome); Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and
Culture (University of Notre Dame)
sig=AHIEtbTktNqEN1pDq6bB2GUsYol2dXmUyg

If I have to choose between what the Catechsim says and what Professor Flannery says. think I’ll stick with the Catechism.