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

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
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…

St Augustine was an eminent Catholic theolgian and philosopher and the Bishop of Hippo at the time. He was the Church. There is no ‘catechism’ other then him and the few other theological writings that have come through time as the Church developed the structure we now know today. Would you be calling St Augustine errant if you could be transported back to the 5th century?

“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)

Fr Flannery is trapped by his erroneous conflation of ‘punishment’ and the extreme, exceptional sentence of death as a last resort. This would be similar to a surgeon conflating surgery with the extreme, exceptional solution of amputation of a diseased limb. Surgery is a medicinal approach to restoring and fortifying the health of the whole body. It desires to save the limb for the sake of bodily wholeness unless that limb is poison to the body by its presence. Aquinas stresses that here…

"Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). "(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)

The rider is always how the limb affects the health of the body. Natural law allows for lethal and final amputation under this condition. Natural law which supports ***species survival ***would accommodate such a measure. It doesn’t support the measure per se, it allows it. Again, punishment supports the health of society and allows the extreme solution of capital punishment. God does not take that rider and void it so that man can act arbitrarily with a death penalty. Divine Law presupposes natural law.

 

[powerofk]

St Augustine was an eminent Catholic theolgian and philosopher and the Bishop of Hippo at the time. He was the Church. There is no ‘catechism’ other then him and the few other theological writings that have come through time as the Church developed the structure we now know today. Would you be calling St Augustine errant if you could be transported back to the 5th century?

Fr Flannery is trapped by his erroneous conflation of ‘punishment’ and the extreme, exceptional sentence of death as a last resort. This would be similar to a surgeon conflating surgery with the extreme, exceptional solution of amputation of a diseased limb. Surgery is a medicinal approach to restoring and fortifying the health of the whole body. It desires to save the limb for the sake of bodily wholeness unless that limb is poison to the body by its presence. Aquinas stresses that here…

"Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). "(Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2)

The rider is always how the limb affects the health of the body. Natural law allows for lethal and final amputation under this condition. Natural law which supports ***species survival ***would accommodate such a measure. It doesn’t support the measure per se, it allows it. Again, punishment supports the health of society and allows the extreme solution of capital punishment. God does not take that rider and void it so that man can act arbitrarily with a death penalty. Divine Law presupposes natural law.

To go along with this - in the past, amputations were much more common than they are today, due to antibiotics. If caught quickly enough, gangrene can be fought with antibiotics today. In the past, the only remedy for gangrene was amputation - often with unsterilized saws. Today’s death penalty needs have become rare and far between not because the crimes have changed, but because we are more able to remedy the solution in a non-lethal way.

In addition, the amount of crimes thought worthy of capital punishment have decreased substatially over time. In the US today, it is generally only for premeditated murder cases (and usually even then, only multiple and/or particularly gruesome murders) that states allow prosecutors to even attempt to push for capital punishment. In times past, heresy, criticism of the king, and other such crimes were considered execution-worthy [this is why we have nursery rhymes - they are often criticisms of the king or queen during a given time disguised in code so the critics wouldn’t be executed; for example - “Humpty Dumpty” is about King James II (he was pudgy, “The Wall” was his horse, and his “fall” was his removal from power through the so-called “Glorious Revolution”) and “Mary, Mary, quite contrary” is about Queen Mary I (her “garden” is a cemetary)].

Today, we have decided that for more and more things, the death penalty is not needed. In fact, we don’t even consider offenses that execution was used for in the past as crimes today.

In addition, Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI lived through the Holocaust. They saw people condemned to death for nothing other than their religion, their disability, or their nation of origin. Many of these people were good friends of these former popes. I think it’s a cautionary tale on their parts, pretty much saying that sentencing someone to death is not something that should be taken lightly. This same lesson can be learned from the “Reign of Terror” that followed the French Revolution, when all it took for a person to be condemned to death was an accusation from one’s neighbors (often without real proof) to be sentenced to the guillotine. The Salem Witch trials had the same problem, with people being executed as witches based on the accusations of a group of young girls.

As such, the death penalty, if used, should be (a) used very judiciously, (b) only for the most serious crimes, (c) used only when there is not even a shadow of a doubt of guilt, and (d) when every other means of correction is unsuitable. This is why the death penalty should be very rare - because meeting both criteria (c) and (d) is extremely rare (Michigan banned the death penalty in the 1800s because an executed man was found later to be innocent). And its use in the wrong hands is terrifying.

 

[dudleysharp]

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

Also Prof. Remick.

I would recommend seeing which one has the firmer foundation, based upon review and fact.

I have yet to find that those professors have changed results of their research, or that others have contradicted their findings, in the past 6 years.

The obligation is to the truth.

2267 seems to be one disaster after another, as with:

Consider this newest recommendation:

(a) “If bloodless means are sufficient” (2267) in this eternal context:

(b) “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” (1) “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2260)

and (a)'s obvious conflict with Genesis also has additional conflicts within its own document, just as one section above

(c) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”. (2265) as well as within 2267, itself, as rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM”.

The Catechism is stating that “The common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” (2265) except that we should rarely, if ever, render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. There is a contradiction.

This Catechism decides that an eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security. Astounding. The Church has knowingly done this.

Does the absence of death penalty better correspond with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person”?

In the first part of this Catechism, the document makes the opposite argument.

Commensurate punishments, by definition, better correspond to the common good and human dignity and the absence of a commensurate punishment injure both the common good as well as human dignity . . . and there is no doubt that the Church has always found the death penalty to be a commensurate punishment for murder, and other crimes, and that execution represents paramount obedience to the fifth commandment.

More importantly is the glaring problem that execution represents “paramount obedience” to the fifth commandment and that justice or redress is the primary reason for execution, but that the Church has pushed them aside for a secondary outcome of sanction “defense of society”, which is in conflict with paramount obedience and which is a secondary outcome of sanction, but not a reason for it, and that the death penalty offers greater defense of society than does incarceration, so the Church has also chosen the direction of more harm to innocents.

Even if Flannery and Remick are wrong, for which we have no evidence to say they are, the criminological realities show that the Church’s teachings are inaccurate and do not represent a prudential judgement, but an imprudent one.

 

[dudleysharp]

There is this additional problem:

2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself” (2267)

First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself. The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace. Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves. Again, a very poorly written section.

Secondly, the Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”. (2267)

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.

All of our sins have us die “early”.

Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

We all die “early” because of our sins.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come. (8) Could there be a more clear message which contradicts this new Church teaching?

The Catechism thus, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what or when that death may be.

Pope Francis states: that “capital sentences be commuted to a lesser punishment that allows for time and incentives for the reform of the offender.”(9)

This is a very odd comment, in that there is no greater incentive to repent than a pending execution that is known in advance.

Romano Amerio states the obvious:

Some opposing capital punishment “. . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory.”(10)

“In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened.” (10)

"In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (10)

"One offensive aspect of this objection is the puny view of God that underlies it. God may be able to turn a murderer into a Christian if we give Him 30 years to do it – but not 30 days? Only by disobeying God can we populate His Kingdom for Him? It begins to sound a little like, “Let us do evil that good may come.” (11)

“If we spare those that God has commanded us to exterminate, we can’t pretend we did it for His glory! The question once again is shown to be: What did God say? with the follow-up, Will we obey? What God said is clear: Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6) He didn’t say that to the Jews (there were no Jews yet); He said it to Noah and his family – to the entire population of the earth.” (11)

Furthermore, a unique benefit of the death penalty is that the offender knows the day of their death and therefore has a huge advantage over the rest of us and, most certainly over the innocent murder victim.

“. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: (p. 116). Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

 

[dudleysharp]

As such, the death penalty, if used, should be (a) used very judiciously, (b) only for the most serious crimes, (c) used only when there is not even a shadow of a doubt of guilt, and (d) when every other means of correction is unsuitable. This is why the death penalty should be very rare - because meeting both criteria (c) and (d) is extremely rare (Michigan banned the death penalty in the 1800s because an executed man was found later to be innocent). And its use in the wrong hands is terrifying.

In the US, it is used very rarely and very judiciously, for about 0.2% of all murders.

I am unaware of the Michigan case. Do you have a link?

One thing that most seem to be missing is that innocents are better protected with the death penalty.

Please review:

The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.html

MURDERERS MUCH PREFER LIFE OVER EXECUTION
99.7% of murderers tell us “Give me life, not execution”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html

 

[DavidLukenbill]

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

A lot of Catholics and non-Catholics struggle with Church teaching and its hierarchy of authority; this is especially acute for non-Catholics, whose numerous faiths have no temporal line of authority as do the Catholics with the pope, so it is common for them to align with a favorite theologian or two; while among Catholics, having theologians expressing opinions on Catholic teaching that are all over the map on various issues, is common; which makes the existence of a teaching line of authority, such as the previous universal Catechism, promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V, and the current universal Catechism, promulgated by Blessed Pope John Paul II, very comforting.

 

[dudleysharp]

Would you be calling St Augustine errant if you could be transported back to the 5th century?
.

No, I would say what I have said, now, which is that the Church had never adopted that teaching.

The whole point was based upon Flannery et als position that both EV and CCC were in error about the Church’s historical teachings and, therefore, the alleged foundation which both EV and CCC built their revised teaching on did, in fact, not exist.

Try to stick to that point, which is all I have said.

I think both Ender and I have looked for any commentary contradicting Flannery, et al, but have not found any. I will let Ender speak for himself, but believe he would have let us know, had he found any conflicts.

Try to stick to that point, which is all I have said.

here is Flannery’s email. Run your criticism by him. Maybe he will respond. And maybe he will say he was wrong.

flannery@unigre.it

He has been Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002)

 

[dudleysharp]

A lot of Catholics and non-Catholics struggle with Church teaching and its hierarchy of authority; this is especially acute for non-Catholics, whose numerous faiths have no temporal line of authority as do the Catholics with the pope, so it is common for them to align with a favorite theologian or two; while among Catholics, having theologians expressing opinions on Catholic teaching that are all over the map on various issues, is common; which makes the existence of a teaching line of authority, such as the previous universal Catechism, promulgated by Pope Saint Pius V, and the current universal Catechism, promulgated by Blessed Pope John Paul II, very comforting.

And that, I fully understand.

Thank you, as always, for your consistently thoughtful and knowledgeable posts

Saint (& Pope) Pius V:

“The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

Pope Pius XII:

“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Saint (& Pope) Pius V:

“The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).

Pope Pius XII:

“When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.

Exactly, and my point, really, is that the Church’s support for capital punishment has not changed, though many liberal Catholics have interpreted the current Catechism’s treatment of it as a change; which the ambiguity of the language used has, unfortunately, allowed, though a precise reading, with frequent use of the dictionary and thesaurus, show the traditional support intact; but that is the way of things, for look how differently people interpret the words of Christ, which are so often clear as a bell.

 

[dudleysharp]

Romano Amerio states the obvious:

Some opposing capital punishment “. . . go on to assert that a life should not be ended because that would remove the possibility of making expiation, is to ignore the great truth that capital punishment is itself expiatory.”(10)

“In a humanistic religion expiation would of course be primarily the converting of a man to other men. On that view, time is needed to effect a reformation, and the time available should not be shortened.” (10)

"In God’s religion, on the other hand, expiation is primarily a recognition of the divine majesty and lordship, which can be and should be recognized at every moment, in accordance with the principle of the concentration of one’s moral life.” (10)
**
NOTE

I, inadvertently, left out the distinction. My apologies. 2 footnotes below.

The following is not Amerio, but is from a Protestant:

NOTE**

"One offensive aspect of this objection is the puny view of God that underlies it. God may be able to turn a murderer into a Christian if we give Him 30 years to do it – but not 30 days? Only by disobeying God can we populate His Kingdom for Him? It begins to sound a little like, “Let us do evil that good may come.” (11)

“If we spare those that God has commanded us to exterminate, we can’t pretend we did it for His glory! The question once again is shown to be: What did God say? with the follow-up, Will we obey? What God said is clear: Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:6) He didn’t say that to the Jews (there were no Jews yet); He said it to Noah and his family – to the entire population of the earth.” (11).

1. “Amerio on capital punishment “, Chapter XXVI, 187. The death penalty, from the book Iota Unum, May 25, 2007 ,

www.domid.blogspot.com/2007/05/amerio-on-capital-punishment.html

1. Jesus and the death penalty: “They may become Christians”, Dan Popp, June 23, 2013
   renewamerica.com/columns/popp/130623

 

[DavidLukenbill]

And, by the way, Professor Flannery’s great article on capital punishment begins:

“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. And yet, as I also hope to show in this Article, despite all this, we can identify a single consistent and coherent truth propounded not only in recent years by the Church’s teaching Magisterium but also throughout the centuries by the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition.” (p. 399) Retrieved August 3, 2013 from legacy.avemarialaw.edu/lr/assets/articles/V5i2.flannery.copyright.pdf

I agreed with this assessment, once I looked up the meaning of “vitiated” which my Oxford defines as: “1. make something less good or effective” which I feel the 2nd edition of the Catechism’s paragraphs on capital punishment versus the 1st edition, did do.

 

[powerofk]

In the US, it is used very rarely and very judiciously, for about 0.2% of all murders.

I am unaware of the Michigan case. Do you have a link?

One thing that most seem to be missing is that innocents are better protected with the death penalty.

Please review:

The Innocent Frauds: Standard Anti Death Penalty Strategy
and
THE DEATH PENALTY: SAVING MORE INNOCENT LIVES
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-innocent-frauds-standard-anti-death.html

OF COURSE THE DEATH PENALTY DETERS: A review of the debate
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/03/of-course-death-penalty-deters.html

MURDERERS MUCH PREFER LIFE OVER EXECUTION
99.7% of murderers tell us “Give me life, not execution”
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-much-preferred-over-execution.html

Here is a link to a record of the Michigan case - the man was guilty, but not of murder - more like involuntary manslaughter, a much lesser crime - and when he sobered up, he was extremely penitent, not believing what he did. Immediately after he was executed, the people regretted their decision (it was race-based regret, as they had no problem executing Native Americans). The state of Michigan then banned execution (and whipping)soon thereafter - and was the first jurisdiction in the English-speaking world to do so. In fact, the state made execution unconstitutional according to state law in its most recent state constitution.

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

 

[DavidLukenbill]

And, I certainly agree with Professor Flannery’s conclusion in that same paper:

"IV. CONCLUSION

"The truth that informs Pope John Paul II’s teaching on capital punishment is, I believe, that killing in itself is unnatural, but is allowed in exceptional circumstances. Moreover, in my opinion, it would have been better to express this truth in the traditional terms found in Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas than (as in the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae ) to attempt to assimilate it to personal self-defense.Obviously, the Church cannot give an account of natural law in its two intentions that relies on the ancient theory of the celestial spheres. But it is characteristic of Aristotle that, although he often ties his philosophical doctrines to the scientific theories of his day, his philosophy can stand on its own feet. The astronomical theory which, up until the days of Bellarmine and Galileo, served to make Aristotle’s metaphysics more convincing, can now be regarded as an accessory—an illustration rather than an integral part of the philosophical machinery.

“By discarding the account of capital punishment in terms of personal self-defense, the Church would be distancing herself from an unfortunate misinterpretation of an important text in St. Thomas Aquinas—that is to say, of the locus classicus for the principle of double effect and for the allowance of personal self-defense. The Church would also be removing one source of confusion among contemporary ethicists regarding the role of intention in the analysis of human action.” (pp. 423) Retrieved August 3, 2013 from legacy.avemarialaw.edu/lr/assets/articles/V5i2.flannery.copyright.pdf

 

[LongingSoul]

2267 seems to be one disaster after another, as with:

Consider this newest recommendation:

(a) “If bloodless means are sufficient” (2267) in this eternal context:

(b) “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” (1) “This teaching remains necessary for all time.” (2260)

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

St Augustine addresses the problem of not being able to harmonise Scripture and Church teaching here…

Chapter 37.— Dangers of Mistaken Interpretation.

For if he takes up rashly a meaning which the author whom he is reading did not intend, he often falls in with other statements which he cannot harmonize with this meaning. And if he admits that these statements are true and certain, then it follows that the meaning he had put upon the former passage cannot be the true one: and so it comes to pass, one can hardly tell how, that, out of love for his own opinion, he begins to feel more angry with Scripture than he is with himself. And if he should once permit that evil to creep in, it will utterly destroy him. “For we walk by faith, not by sight.” 2 Corinthians 5:7 Now faith will totter if the authority of Scripture begin to shake. And then, if faith totter, love itself will grow cold. For if a man has fallen from faith, he must necessarily also fall from love; for he cannot love what he does not believe to exist. But if he both believes and loves, then through good works, and through diligent attention to the precepts of morality, he comes to hope also that he shall attain the object of his love. And so these are the three things to which all knowledge and all prophecy are subservient: faith, hope, love. - newadvent.org/fathers/12021.htm

So unless you are trying to say that Pope John Paul II and the last 2 Popes are shabby theologians or have cognitive dissonance or was acting for the devil, then we can feel assured that this and what follows in the chapter are reconcilable. This ‘sacred witness of history’ establishes the scope of the chapter as the ‘respect for human life’. “The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life. This teaching remains necessary for all time.” The earliest records we have of humankind, affirm that blood sacrifice in honouring and appeasing the unknown deities come from man’s natural instincts. It distinguishes us from other animals and is the primary sign of our personal relationship with a supernatural ‘creator’. This must never be forgotten. To ascribe this teaching to an expiatory death penalty mandated permanently to state jurisdiction diminishes or voids the sacrifice that Christ made by His blood. : “Now that Jesus Christ has been nailed to the cross for the sins of the world, how can we still use the thought of expiation to establish the death penalty?” – Theologian Karl Barth

and (a)'s obvious conflict with Genesis also has additional conflicts within its own document, just as one section above

(c) the “common good” “requires” an unjust aggressor be rendered “unable to inflict harm”. (2265) as well as within 2267, itself, as rendering the aggressor “INCAPABLE OF DOING HARM”.

The Catechism is stating that “The common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm” (2265) except that we should rarely, if ever, render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. There is a contradiction.

This Catechism decides that an eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security. Astounding. The Church has knowingly done this.

The rest of the culturally Christian world who execute justice without recourse to the death penalty, show that what you find impossible is very possible. While no penal system is perfect, its crucial place in upholding justice is much better served on a basis of the absolute dignity of all persons no matter how deviant, rather than being based on a divine ‘licence to kill’. This first point of call, is where the battle against all other ‘license to kill’ mentalities can be shot down, as every person that chooses to kill another rather than ‘work through it’ where their very life is not at risk, has taken the mantle of ‘god’ unto himself.

… continued

 

[LongingSoul]

Does the absence of death penalty better correspond with “the common good and with the dignity of the human person”?

In the first part of this Catechism, the document makes the opposite argument.

Commensurate punishments, by definition, better correspond to the common good and human dignity and the absence of a commensurate punishment injure both the common good as well as human dignity . . . and there is no doubt that the Church has always found the death penalty to be a commensurate punishment for murder, and other crimes, and that execution represents paramount obedience to the fifth commandment.

The Church has never dealt with the death penalty as a commensurate punishment on a continuum of sentencing. It has always been permitted by the rider requiring the safety of the community. No other sentence is conditional upon or constricted in that way. As I’ve demonstrated above by Aquinas’s example of the diseased limbs effect on a body, there are many other examples.

“According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.” Summa Theologica

Human justice puts to death those who are dangerous to others. The rider.

It is conversely demonstrated here…

“ 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

The danger to the community behoves the state to withhold the death penalty. Would Aquinas make this rider if the primary function of the death penalty is divine expiation? Would not the supposed primary purpose always trump the secondary purpose rather than simply having the value of expiation when it is serving its primary function in human justice?

More importantly is the glaring problem that execution represents “paramount obedience” to the fifth commandment and that justice or redress is the primary reason for execution, but that the Church has pushed them aside for a secondary outcome of sanction “defense of society”, which is in conflict with paramount obedience and which is a secondary outcome of sanction, but not a reason for it, and that the death penalty offers greater defense of society than does incarceration, so the Church has also chosen the direction of more harm to innocents.

I don’t see the conflict. From the Catechism of Trent…

The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it.* For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life.*** This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives. “

“the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life” and execution of justice by being obedient to that purpose, is being obedient to the commandment.

Cardinal Dulles explains the nature of retribution in human justice…

*"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.

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

Therein lies the bottom line. If capital punishment is the only way to protect society from an aggressor, the Church makes no objection to its use. But the state in our day do not imitate Divine justice in defending the rights of the unborn and the elderly and whilst being a valid authority within the community, are not faithful to the most fundamental dignity of man. The death penalty does not serve to promote or defend the dignity of man.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Therein lies the bottom line. If capital punishment is the only way to protect society from an aggressor, the Church makes no objection to its use. But the state in our day do not imitate Divine justice in defending the rights of the unborn and the elderly and whilst being a valid authority within the community, are not faithful to the most fundamental dignity of man. The death penalty does not serve to promote or defend the dignity of man.

I agree with you in the second sentence, but as for the rest of the paragraph, I—nor does it appear hardly anyone else is–am not discussing the role of the state regarding capital punishment, but responding to the initial question, “Did the Catholic Church’s teaching on the death penalty change?”

What the state does has very little to do with that, and of course they “do not imitate Divine Justice.”

 

[powerofk]

As I stated before, I think Bl. John Paul II’s severe caution regarding the death penalty came from his experiences in Nazi-occupied & then Soviet-occupied Poland. In both cases, the state felt justified in executing dissidents - simply people who did not agree with the ruling Party.

An example that John Paul II would have seen when the Soviets were controlling Poland is as follows: Stalin was known for executing even his own Party members, simply because he saw them as a threat to his own power. Stalin was also known for executing the first person to stop applauding after one of his speeches (which is why, on tapes of Stalin’s speeches, the crowd often applauds for over 15 minutes without stopping - they’re afraid of being executed if they stop applauding).

As such, I doubt John Paul II was against execution when its use was truly legitimate, but he personally saw it used way too much as a tool of oppression. Benedict XVI also saw these same abuses by the Nazis in Germany (and by the Soviets later in East Germany). Pope Francis saw these abuses himself early in his career in Argentina when Juan and Eva Peron were in power. And I think that has really been the worry of our most recent Popes - that execution can be used as a tool of oppression, and so any state power that chooses to use the death penalty must be absolutely sure that it is executing a person for a just reason and apply the punishment fairly. They didn’t (and don’t) oppose the death penalty per se, but they have seen the punishment abused so often that they became extremely wary of it. That may be why Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism of the Catholic Church seem to contradict former church teaching (and could seem to contradict themselves internally). The Popes look like they have been trying to reconcile their own wariness of the death penalty due to abuse of the practice with the historical teaching of the church.

 

[LongingSoul]

I agree with you in the second sentence, but as for the rest of the paragraph, I—nor does it appear hardly anyone else is–am not discussing the role of the state regarding capital punishment, but responding to the initial question, “Did the Catholic Church’s teaching on the death penalty change?”

What the state does has very little to do with that,

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

and of course they “do not imitate Divine Justice.”

Aquinas put it in such a way… “According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers”

 

[LongingSoul]

There is this additional problem:

2267: “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself”.

The Catechism finds that we should end the death penalty in order to provide alternate sanctions “without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself” (2267)

First, the Catechism states, above, that the wrongdoer redeems himself. The biblical/theological realities find that all wrongdoers can/should seek redemption, but that God provides redemption to the wrongdoer by His grace. Wrongdoers can only seek redemption, they cannot provide it to themselves. Again, a very poorly written section.

It is accurate in the sense that we ‘co-operate’ with grace. (I’m guessing from this and other comments that you are of the Protestant persuasion?)

CCC 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.

Secondly, the Church is, hereby, stating that the death penalty is “taking away from him (the executed party) the possibility of redeeming himself”. (2267)

The Catechism is stating that the God invoked sanction of death takes away the possibility of redemption. Think about that. There is nothing to defend such a claim, in such a context.

All of our sins have us die “early”.

Is there a case, whereby God has erased the possibility of our redemption, solely because of our earthly and “early” deaths? Such an interpretation is, in context, flatly, against God’s message and cannot stand.

We all die “early” because of our sins.

It is as if the Church had, completely, forgotten the meaning of St. Dismas’ death, his words exchanged with Jesus and the promise to come. (8) Could there be a more clear message which contradicts this new Church teaching?

The Catechism thus, wrongly, finds that all “early” deaths, meaning all earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed. Such is an astonishing claim, if not much worse.

In God’s perfection, we suffer an “early” death, because of our sins. The Catechism wrongly tells us that our “early” deaths takes away the possibility of our being redeemed. It can’t and does not. God gives all of us the opportunity of redemption, in His grace, before our earthly and early deaths, no matter what or when that death may be.

This just means that in our death we can no longer help ourselves in the sense of what I’ve written above. The time for meriting ends by our death. We can no longer merit anything to satisfy for our sins. We all have a special obligation to pray and offer our sufferings for the souls languishing in purgatory for this reason. So it doesn’t mean that ‘earthly deaths, negate the possibility of our being redeemed’… just that a person can no longer co-operate with grace in making satisfaction for his sins in the way of CCC 2010.

St. Thomas Aquinas: “The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so stubborn that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from evil, it is possible to make a highly probable judgement that they would never come away from evil to the right use of their powers.” Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, 146.

Again you are overlooking that very important rider. *‘The fact that the evil, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors **does not prohibit the fact that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater *and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement.’ Where it is necessary to protect society from this aggressor, then can their death have the value of expiation if they repent. It is not within the states power to make the death expiatory. The state isn’t God. The state is limited to serving the common good.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

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

The operative words there from Cardinal Dulles—one of my favorite theologians—“For the symbolism to be authentic the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice…” which of course, when the state responds to Catholic teaching rarely occurs as virtually all states in the Western world are secular in practice though may proclaim religious roots; and again, we cannot look to the state, as it is in practice in the world, for guidance or validation of Catholic teaching; for that we must look to the Church, and even there, in the actions too often of our Church leaders, we may be disappointed.