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

[LongingSoul]

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.

But being that divine law presupposes natural law, it is possible for man to believe in the existence of the transcendent order of justice through natural reason. The fact that primitive people and pagans have through their natural instincts, practiced rites of sacrifice and atonement makes this evident. It’s what distinguishes humans from other animals. What Catholic teaching is giving us is a personal relationship with our Creator as our Father. We know Him by faith and we understand divine law by faith and through natural reason we know it is possible for the state without technically being a Papal state, to be legitimate and worthy … but that isn’t the case in todays society. Todays state subscribes too closely with individualism and the self as the highest authority known to man.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

But being that divine law presupposes natural law, it is possible for man to believe in the existence of the transcendent order of justice through natural reason. The fact that primitive people and pagans have through their natural instincts, practiced rites of sacrifice and atonement makes this evident. It’s what distinguishes humans from other animals. What Catholic teaching is giving us is a personal relationship with our Creator as our Father. We know Him by faith and we understand divine law by faith and through natural reason we know it is possible for the state without technically being a Papal state, to be legitimate and worthy … but that isn’t the case in todays society. Todays state subscribes too closely with individualism and the self as the highest authority known to man.

I would agree with that, and it is unfortunate that, in a few instances connected to the natural law (including those which you mentioned) today’s secular states are inferior to those governed by pagans and primitives, though in far more ways, vastly superior.

 

[LongingSoul]

I would agree with that, and it is unfortunate that, in a few instances connected to the natural law (including those which you mentioned) today’s secular states are inferior to those governed by pagans and primitives, though in far more ways, vastly superior.

You and I don’t represent irreconcilable positions in relation to capital punishment, it’s true.

I think that through this discussion, I’ve observed that positions as respresented by Ender, dudleysharp and the ultra traditionalist theologians are constrained by a rigid type of intellectualism that can result in the cognitive dissonance that the likes of schisms are made of. I feel oddly impelled via the internet forum to take that head on for the sake of familial unity in Christ.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

You and I don’t represent irreconcilable positions in relation to capital punishment, it’s true.

I agree and have felt that way for some time.

I’m not sure I completely agree with you on this, but I do agree that intellectual rigidity on any Catholic issue, without taking into account Church teaching as expressed by the universal catechisms, ecumenical councils, and papal magisteriums, can lead to trouble within your personal faith.

I am currently reading a great book about Vatican II which has cleared up an issue I’ve been struggling with as it makes the point:

“No matter where authority in the church is located, in what manner is it to be wielded? That is a third issue-under-the-issues, suggested by the word “charism.” Here the council becomes more explicit by introducing a new vocabulary and literary form. Words like “charism,” “dialogue,” “partnership,” “cooperation,” and “friendship” indicate a new style for the exercise of authority and implicitly advocate a conversion to a new style of thinking, speaking, and behaving, a change from a more authoritarian and unidirectional style to a more reciprocal and responsive model. This change effected a redefinition of what councils are and what they are supposed to accomplish. Vatican II so radically modified the legislative and judicial model that had prevailed since the first council, Nicaea, in 325, that it virtually abandoned it. It its place Vatican II put a model largely based on persuasion and invitation. This was a momentous shift.” (p. 11)

O’Malley, J. W. (2008). What happened at Vatican II. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Ender]

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.

As a matter of grammar this interpretation is not accurate. The form of Gn 9:6 is “A is necessary because of B.” “Because of B” is a dependent clause; it is an explanation of why A is necessary but it is A, not B, that is the subject of the sentence. Beyond this, your explanation misses the point that the sacredness of man’s nature has already been revealed (in Gn 1:26). Gn 9:6 is an explanation; Gn 1:26 is the revelation.

The scope of this verse and chapter is to establish for us the value and inviolability of human life.

It is unreasonable to suggest that a statement explaining why life should be taken actually means that life should not be taken. It also completely reverses the meaning of the passage. What Genesis says is that the life of a murderer is forfeit because the life of his victim was sacred. Your interpretation is that the life of a murderer is secured because his life is sacred.

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.

Capital punishment does not reveal man’s sacredness; that revelation is part of the creation story. The fact that we are to forbear from misusing it does not change the fact that Gn 9:6 defines it as a precept.

In uprooting the cockle with capital punishment we are uprooting the wheat whose roots are entangled with the weeds.

This is a practical objection, not a moral one. I recognize the validity of raising prudential objections to using capital punishment (whether or not I agree with them) but this objection does not address the moral aspect of its use.

In posts 181 and 182, I’ve quoted St Augustine conveying the Catholic attitude towards capital punishment to the Magistrates of the day.

You read too much into Augustine’s comments. Not once does he raise a moral objection to capital punishment. Instead he requests that it not be applied against those who have harmed Christians. A better explanation of the"Catholic attitude towards capital punishment" comes from the fact that the “nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit…” (Steven A. Long)

Since you have held up Augustine’s letters as the "Catholic attitude towards capital punishment" it is reasonable to point out that his comments are not at all in accord with 2267 inasmuch as 2267 says we may execute those who are dangerous to society while Augustine did not even include that exception. Even by your standard 2267 is in error.

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.

If you accept that capital punishment is in fact “cruel” and an affront to the “dignity of man” then you must also accept that the church supported cruelty for 2000 years and is willing even today to overlook this insult to man’s dignity if it makes our lives safer.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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

The catechism makes a statement about the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment that is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct then there should be documentation to support it but it turns out that the documentation, of which there is a great deal, does not support it. It is, as Flannery asserted, in error.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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?

First you misinterpret what Augustine said and now you dismiss all of the other Fathers, popes, and Doctors of the Church who lived before or during his time. What of Innocent I who was both pope and saint, should we ignore his position: “*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God?” Inasmuch as he was a contemporary of Augustine why would we assume that when he said “all hold” something he really meant “all except Augustine hold”?
*

Fr Flannery is trapped by his erroneous conflation of ‘punishment’ and the extreme, exceptional sentence of death as a last resort.

You assert that capital punishment is a punishment of last resort. This is not the traditional teaching of the church. Her teaching is that death is the just and appropriate punishment for murder.

Aquinas stresses that here…

There is nothing in Aquinas’ comment that addresses the appropriate punishment for murderers. Rather he addresses the appropriateness of applying capital punishment to those who are “dangerous and infectious to the community” which means that it may be applied in less severe cases, as he makes clear in I-II 19,10.because the judge has care of the common good, which is justice, and therefore he wishes the thief’s death, which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate;

Natural law which supports ***species survival ***would accommodate such a measure.

It is not mere survival that is at issue, rather it is justice and capital punishment is not accommodated by church doctrine but mandated by it. Or at least it was until 2267.

God does not take that rider and void it so that man can act arbitrarily with a death penalty.

“Whoever sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed” is actually quite specific. What is arbitrary about following God’s mandate?

Divine Law presupposes natural law.

Surely you mean that natural law presupposes divine law.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

The catechism makes a statement about the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment that is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct then there should be documentation to support it but it turns out that the documentation, of which there is a great deal, does not support it. It is, as Flannery asserted, in error.

Ender

Ah yes, the misunderstanding of Church Tradition and teaching by Ratzinger, Schoenborn, Bl/St. John Paul II, etc.

Alright then, there you have it. I guess we know better than 2 Popes now, not to mention the Church Fathers.

It’s been fun watching this thread.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

The catechism makes a statement about the traditional teaching of the church on capital punishment that is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct then there should be documentation to support it but it turns out that the documentation, of which there is a great deal, does not support it. It is, as Flannery asserted, in error.

To me, the bottom line is not necessarily the specific arguments used by the Church to support capital punishment, but the fact that she supports it.

That being said, I agree with Flannery, as stated in the article about it in the Ave Maria Law Review: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THE LAW that “it would have been better to express this truth in the traditional terms found in Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas”

Here are the concluding paragraphs of that article:

“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.” (p. 423)

To conclude, I’ll stick with the interpretation of the Catechism, but look for more clarity in the future.

 

[Ender]

The Church has never dealt with the death penalty as a commensurate punishment on a continuum of sentencing.

The continuum allusion is your own perception; the church has never discussed punishment from that perspective. Her position on the death penalty is based specifically on Gn 9:6 and Rom 13:4 which deals with a particular punishment for a particular crime

It has always been permitted by the rider requiring the safety of the community.

The rider you refer to cannot be found in any church document prior to 1995. It is no part of the writings of either Augustine or Aquinas. Augustine requested that capital punishment not be applied even to protect the community and Aquinas explained why it could be used against those who were “dangerous to others”, which is actually an expansion of its use, not a restriction. Aquinas nowhere even implies that its use should be restricted only to those who were dangerous. Quite the contrary: he considered its use “fixed by divine law.”

It is conversely demonstrated here…

This is no restriction other than one that says we shouldn’t execute someone if it hurts others in the process. That is, Aquinas gives this as an explanation of when capital punishment ought not be used, an exception made necessary only by the fact that capital punishment is the default punishment … the one set by divine law.

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?

You have mixed up a number of concepts. The primary function of punishment is retributive justice; I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it is divine expiation. The argument Aquinas makes here is a practical one: we shouldn’t harm the good in attempting to punish the bad. This argument says nothing whatever about not punishing the bad according to the law if there is no danger to the good. This is a prudential argument and it is very likely in line with what JPII believed - that capital punishment in modern societies harmed the good. That, however, is not a moral argument and does not alter the church’s traditional position on the acceptability of capital punishment.

I don’t see the conflict. From the Catechism of Trent…*** "***For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life."

This again confuses two different concepts. The purpose of the law may be to protect life but that is not the primary purpose of punishment and it is punishment we are discussing, not the law.

Cardinal Dulles explains the nature of retribution in human justice…
“The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance.”

Dulles’ point is that retribution is currently being misconstrued, which - again - is a practical objection to using capital punishment. It is not a moral objection.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Ah yes, the misunderstanding of Church Tradition and teaching by Ratzinger, Schoenborn, Bl/St. John Paul II, etc.

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

Alright then, there you have it. I guess we know better than 2 Popes now, not to mention the Church Fathers.

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

Ender

 

[Ender]

To me, the bottom line is not necessarily the specific arguments used by the Church to support capital punishment, but the fact that she supports it.

It is obvious that the last three popes have personally opposed the use of capital punishment. It is equally clear that there was a major change in the church’s position on capital punishment between the 1992 and 1997 versions of the catechism. The church has never had the position that “this is right because the pope says so.” Rather she has always held that reason was necessary for faith and that there is no conflict between the two. On this issue, however, there is a conflict between what the church has taught in the past and what she is alleged to be teaching now and this sets up a conflict between faith and reason. For me, if there is no logical explanation for 2267, then I cannot resolve the conflict and I have yet to find an explanation that rationalizes the traditional teaching with the new position. I cannot even find a convincing explanation of the basis for the traditional teaching that 2267 claims exists.

I agree with this assessment of the problem.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. *(R. Michael Dunnigan)
Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

As a matter of grammar this interpretation is not accurate. The form of Gn 9:6 is “A is necessary because of B.” “Because of B” is a dependent clause; it is an explanation of why A is necessary but it is A, not B, that is the subject of the sentence. Beyond this, your explanation misses the point that the sacredness of man’s nature has already been revealed (in Gn 1:26). Gn 9:6 is an explanation; Gn 1:26 is the revelation.

***CCC 53 **The divine plan of Revelation is realized simultaneously “by deeds and words which are intrinsically bound up with each other” and shed light on each another. It involves a specific divine pedagogy: God communicates himself to man gradually. He prepares him to welcome by stages the supernatural Revelation that is to culminate in the person and mission of the incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. *

Revelation is like a pregnancy, unfolding mysteriously until the fulfilment of the first inspiration in the birth of the child. When we look back on all the impressions and indications the pregnancy revealed as it unfolded, we look back through the light of its fulfilment. … the child we now know. We don’t use all the impressions and indications to relate to the child anymore. We have the child himself to guide us in caring for him. But everything up until the birth constitutes an unfolding of revelation , but only the birth constitutes the ‘explanation’ as you put it.

It is unreasonable to suggest that a statement explaining why life should be taken actually means that life should not be taken. It also completely reverses the meaning of the passage. What Genesis says is that the life of a murderer is forfeit because the life of his victim was sacred. Your interpretation is that the life of a murderer is secured because his life is sacred.
Capital punishment does not reveal man’s sacredness; that revelation is part of the creation story. The fact that we are to forbear from misusing it does not change the fact that Gn 9:6 defines it as a precept.

Firstly it’s not ‘my’ interpretation. It is the Church’s interpretation. “A Catholic approach begins with the recognition that the dignity of the human person applies to both victim and offender.” – USCCB.

This is a practical objection, not a moral one. I recognize the validity of raising prudential objections to using capital punishment (whether or not I agree with them) but this objection does not address the moral aspect of its use.

Why is it not true that the moral of a story develops and refines with time and natural evolution? I made the point earlier to you that at one time fire was regarded as the critical value in cooking. With human developments we can say that ‘heat’ is the critical value in cooking since we now use electricity and microwave to achieve the same outcome. It becomes clear that the ‘precept’ as dictated to a primitive person was only some of the story. We don’t treat of them saying ‘how wrong were they thinking that fire is the critical value in cooking.’ It’s the same with pregnancy. You absolutely can’t drink alcohol when you’re pregnant. That precept is not as critical in breastfeeding the new baby but still has some importance. But my kids are all over 18 and as a mother, I can drink alcohol till the cows come home without hurting them. (Not that I do.) The precept is always in service to a more fundamental moral. The environment can make the precept essential or unnecessary in serving the moral.

You read too much into Augustine’s comments. Not once does he raise a moral objection to capital punishment. Instead he requests that it not be applied against those who have harmed Christians. A better explanation of the"Catholic attitude towards capital punishment" comes from the fact that the “nearly unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit…” (Steven A. Long)

That doesn’t prove your point that the death penalty is mandated rather than permitted. It is morally licit within the scope of law. …”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.”- CCC

Since you have held up Augustine’s letters as the "Catholic attitude towards capital punishment" it is reasonable to point out that his comments are not at all in accord with 2267 inasmuch as 2267 says we may execute those who are dangerous to society while Augustine did not even include that exception. Even by your standard 2267 is in error.

If you accept that capital punishment is in fact “cruel” and an affront to the “dignity of man” then you must also accept that the church supported cruelty for 2000 years and is willing even today to overlook this insult to man’s dignity if it makes our lives safer.

The Church explains “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.”

We would be very arrogant and insular to conclude that “the church supported cruelty for 2000 years” based on the state of our modern penal capacities and our understandings of scripture. That’s an insult to any reasonable thinking person.

 

[LongingSoul]

First you misinterpret what Augustine said and now you dismiss all of the other Fathers, popes, and Doctors of the Church who lived before or during his time. What of Innocent I who was both pope and saint, should we ignore his position: “*Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God?” *Inasmuch as he was a contemporary of Augustine why would we assume that when he said “all hold” something he really meant “all except Augustine hold”?

Again, Innocent I says it is ‘permitted’ by God. That isn’t the way one would talk of punishment per se. Punishment for wrong doing is mandated as you’d say. The death penalty is permitted. When the ‘life blood’ of others is in danger, then the aggressor relinquishes his right to ‘life blood’.

You assert that capital punishment is a punishment of last resort. This is not the traditional teaching of the church. Her teaching is that death is the just and appropriate punishment for murder.

There is nothing in Aquinas’ comment that addresses the appropriate punishment for murderers. Rather he addresses the appropriateness of applying capital punishment to those who are “dangerous and infectious to the community” which means that it may be applied in less severe cases, as he makes clear in I-II 19,10.because the judge has care of the common good, which is justice, and therefore he wishes the thief’s death, which has the aspect of good in relation to the common estate;

It is not mere survival that is at issue, rather it is justice and capital punishment is not accommodated by church doctrine but mandated by it. Or at least it was until 2267.
“Whoever sheds man’s blood by man shall his blood be shed” is actually quite specific. What is arbitrary about following God’s mandate?

Surely you mean that natural law presupposes divine law .

But as you’ve just demonstrated above, the penalty has been applied in less severe cases than shedding blood, so even being very specific in that way, man has used it for other crimes than the shedding of blood. The ‘permission’ has been invoked at different times for different crimes according to the circumstances as discerned by men based on reason and natural law. The Churchs job is to, with God’s grace, communicate Divine law.

Summa Theologica…

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

It was fitting that the Divine law should come to man’s assistance not only in those things for which reason is insufficient, but also in those things in which human reason may happen to be impeded. Now human reason could not go astray in the abstract, as to the universal principles of the natural law; but through being habituated to sin, it became obscured in the point of things to be done in detail. But with regard to the other moral precepts, which are like conclusions drawn from the universal principles of the natural law, the reason of many men went astray, to the extend of judging to be lawful, things that are evil in themselves. Hence there was need for the authority of the Divine law to rescue man from both these defects. Thus among the articles of faith not only are those things set forth to which reason cannot reach, such as the Trinity of the Godhead; but also those to which right reason can attain, such as the Unity of the Godhead; in order to remove the manifold errors to which reason is liable.

As Augustine proves (De Spiritu et Litera xiv), even the letter of the law is said to be the occasion of death, as to the moral precepts; in so far as, to wit, it prescribes what is good, without furnishing the aid of grace for its fulfilment.*" - ST I-II 99,2

 

[LongingSoul]

It is obvious that the last three popes have personally opposed the use of capital punishment. It is equally clear that there was a major change in the church’s position on capital punishment between the 1992 and 1997 versions of the catechism. The church has never had the position that “this is right because the pope says so.” Rather she has always held that reason was necessary for faith and that there is no conflict between the two. On this issue, however, there is a conflict between what the church has taught in the past and what she is alleged to be teaching now and this sets up a conflict between faith and reason. For me, if there is no logical explanation for 2267, then I cannot resolve the conflict and I have yet to find an explanation that rationalizes the traditional teaching with the new position. I cannot even find a convincing explanation of the basis for the traditional teaching that 2267 claims exists.

I agree with this assessment of the problem.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. *(R. Michael Dunnigan)
Ender

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

”See God in your superiors; so shall you learn to revere their will and follow their commands. Be well assured that obedience is the safest guide and most faithful interpreter of the Divine Will. Pour out your hearts to them as freely as water, mindful that they are charged with the direction of your souls. . . . Above all, do not be your own master, relying on your own prudence, contrary to the caution of the wise man.”–Saint Ignatius, Father of the Church

“We must put aside all judgment of our own, and keep the mind ever ready and prompt to obey in all things the true Spouse of Christ our Lord, our holy Mother, the hierarchical Church.”–Saint Ignatius of Loyola

“Obedience unites us so closely to God that in a way transforms us into Him, so that we have no other will but His. If obedience is lacking, even prayer cannot be pleasing to God.”– St. Thomas Aquinas

”The obedience which we render to a superior is paid to God, Who says, ‘He that hears you hears Me;’ so that whatever he who holds the place of God commands, supposing it is not evidently contrary to God’s law, is to be received by us as if it came from God Himself; for it is the same thing to know His Will, either from His Own, from an Angel’s, or from a man’s mouth.”–Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, Father and Doctor of the Church

”Obedience is a virtue of so excellent a nature, that Our Lord was pleased to mark its observance upon the whole course of His life; thus He often says, He did not come to do His Own will, but that of His Heavenly Father.”–Saint Francis of Sales, Doctor of the Church

”Naturally we all have an inclination to command, and a great aversion to obey; and yet it is certain that it is more for our good to obey than to command; hence perfect souls have always had a great affection for obedience, and have found all their joy and comfort in it.”–Saint Francis of Sales, Doctor of the Church

“One of the greatest graces for which I feel myself indebted to Our Lord is, that His Divine Majesty has given me the desire to be obedient; for in this virtue I find most consolation and contentment, it being that which Our Lord recommended by His own example more than any other, and on this account I desire to possess it more than anything else in the world.”–Saint Teresa of Avila, Doctor of the Church

”The more we see that any action springs not from the motive of obedience, the more evident is it that it is a temptation of the enemy; for when God sends an inspiration, the very first effect of it is to infuse a spirit of docility.”–Saint Teresa of Avila, Doctor of the Church

 

[DavidLukenbill]

It is obvious that the last three popes have personally opposed the use of capital punishment. It is equally clear that there was a major change in the church’s position on capital punishment between the 1992 and 1997 versions of the catechism. The church has never had the position that “this is right because the pope says so.” Rather she has always held that reason was necessary for faith and that there is no conflict between the two. On this issue, however, there is a conflict between what the church has taught in the past and what she is alleged to be teaching now and this sets up a conflict between faith and reason. For me, if there is no logical explanation for 2267, then I cannot resolve the conflict and I have yet to find an explanation that rationalizes the traditional teaching with the new position. I cannot even find a convincing explanation of the basis for the traditional teaching that 2267 claims exists.

I agree with this assessment of the problem.*Catholic teaching on capital punishment is in a state of dangerous ambiguity. *(R. Michael Dunnigan)
Ender

There is nothing in what you say or in the quote from Dunnigan that I would disagree with. I also wish the 1992 version would have not been changed, but it was, and fortunately, the support is still there, but it is ambiguous, and I wish it was not.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

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

”See God in your superiors; so shall you learn to revere their will and follow their commands. Be well assured that obedience is the safest guide and most faithful interpreter of the Divine Will. Pour out your hearts to them as freely as water, mindful that they are charged with the direction of your souls. . . . Above all, do not be your own master, relying on your own prudence, contrary to the caution of the wise man.”–Saint Ignatius, Father of the Church

Many of the past injunctions on obediance, especially with matters that are not clearly settled by Church doctrine, and capital punishment obviously falls into that area of ambiguity, as is so evident in this discussion; all of these injunctions have been trumped by the new canoncial directive for the laity to provide correction when needed, and here is the specifics, including the specific one on obedience, and the only declaring or establishing that has been done is in support of capital punishment, as the off the cuff comments of the last three popes about abolishing it do not rise to either declaring or establishing:

"Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

"§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

“§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”

 

[Ender]

the cuff comments of the last three popes about abolishing it do not rise to either declaring or establishing

*It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. And, if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments. *(Christopher Ferrera - Crisis Magazine)
Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

*It is manifestly impossible for Catholic doctrine on the death penalty to “develop” from an approbation based on revealed truth to a condemnation based on the teaching of the last Pope. And, if we are not discussing the immorality of capital punishment in itself, when all is said and done it is not a question of “development” of doctrine, but only the debatable application of a morally legitimate penalty. Here Catholics, and civil authorities, remain free to make their own prudential judgments. *(Christopher Ferrera - Crisis Magazine)Ender

I agree, Ferrera, as usual, nails it.

 

[Ender]

Firstly it’s not ‘my’ interpretation. It is the Church’s interpretation. “A Catholic approach begins with the recognition that the dignity of the human person applies to both victim and offender.” – USCCB.

The question here is not whether the dignity of both the victim and the offender should be recognized; that isn’t the dispute. The issue is how Gn 9:6 is to be understood: what does it actually mean? This is where I said you applied your own interpretation. What the passage says is rather straightforward: the life of a murderer is forfeit because the life of his victim was sacred. Since this is the plain meaning of the passage it is unsurprising that this is how the church has always understood it. Suggesting that capital punishment is wrong because is an offense against the dignity of the criminal reverses the meaning. It is also a misunderstanding of what constitutes an offense against man’s dignity.… to regard a person as deserving of punishment is implicitly to affirm his dignity as a human being, for it is to acknowledge that he has free will and moral responsibility, unlike a robot or a mere animal. If inflicting lesser punishments is not incompatible with human dignity and even implicitly affirms it, then given the principle of proportionality, capital punishment also can be compatible with (and indeed an affirmation of) human dignity. (Edward Feser)

Why is it not true that the moral of a story develops and refines with time and natural evolution?

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

The environment can make the precept essential or unnecessary in serving the moral.

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

That doesn’t prove your point that the death penalty is mandated rather than permitted.

I wasn’t making that point. I was responding to a comment you had made. Keep my comments in the context in which I make them.

It is morally licit within the scope of law. …”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.”- CCC

This is one point I have disputed. Despite what the catechism says there is no evidence to support this claim and neither the catechism nor Evangelium Vitae provide any citation to what they regard as the “traditional teaching.”

We would be very arrogant and insular to conclude that “the church supported cruelty for 2000 years” based on the state of our modern penal capacities and our understandings of scripture. That’s an insult to any reasonable thinking person.

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

Ender