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

[Ender]

I can understand, you not being Catholic…

An argument is either right or wrong and being or not being a Catholic has no bearing on that.

I simply don’t understand why catholics, given the graces of confirmation to grow beyond a self-centered spirituality to live for others and ***strengthening ***our bonds with the Church… can keep saying that ‘the Church is wrong’, ‘the Pope is wrong’, … in error… mistaken… or God forbid, evil. It baffles me beyond belief.

Perhaps you would have less trouble with what others say if you read their comments more carefully and not leap to the conclusions you have made.

Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

No, it does not. In fact it is explicitly not part of that topic. It has its own heading which immediately follows the section on self defense. Since you felt this was a significant point when you believed capital punishment was a subset of legitimate defense are you willing to acknowledge the significance that it clearly is not covered by that topic?Ender

Actually Longing Soul is right on that point; it is located under legitimate defense, not only in the printed version but also in the Vatican online version, at vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#I

And I might add, you guys are really closer than you might think since both of you , now, agree that the Catholic Church supports capital punishment, but you appear to be discussing the specific whys and wherefores, but still an very interesting discussion.

Here is the quote from the Vatican Catechism:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

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.”

 

[Ender]

Actually Longing Soul is right on that point; it is located under legitimate defense, not only in the printed version but also in the Vatican online version, at vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#I

This is interesting and I’ve noticed it before: there appear to be multiple versions of the catechism on the Vatican web site. The one I referenced is different and in it the “Legitimate defense” section includes numbers 2263-2265 while a completely different section under “Capital punishment” incorporates numbers 2266-2267. There is one layer of confusion after another. It isn’t exactly clear which is the more recent copy although the first page of your citation appears to indicate this is the 1997 version while the “credits” section of the version I cited indicates it is from 2003. If that is indeed the case then what conclusion should we draw from the fact that the sections on capital punishment appear to have been removed from the sections dealing with legitimate defense? I do know that the catechism has received several updates and that the 1997 version is not current. Dudley Sharp has investigated this to some extent and is more familiar with the revisions than I am.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

This is interesting and I’ve noticed it before: there appear to be multiple versions of the catechism on the Vatican web site.

I agree, it is very interesting, and I had seen the other version you posted a link to, but in a printed version, not online at the Vatican; and for even more confusion, peruse the various national catechisms sometime. I’ve seen the Australian (liked that one) and the American (don’t like that one); but, a lot to discuss.

 

[CrossofChrist]

1992 edition: 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.

1997 edition: The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
These two descriptions of the traditional teaching of the church are different and only one (competing) description of history can be accurate. The assertion has been made with extensive documentation that the 1992 version is the correct one. Even if we can’t agree on that point surely we should be able to agree that the two versions are different.

They are different, but the essence of what is being said is the same.

For example, the Catechism promulgated by JPII and the Baltimore Catechism have different definitions of what a sacrifice is:

Baltimore: A sacrifice is the offering of a victim by a priest to God alone, and the destruction of it in some way to acknowledge that He is the Creator of all things.

1997 version: “Every action done so as to cling to God in communion of holiness, and thus achieve blessedness, is a true sacrifice.” (St. Augustine)

So, which one’s right? (Hint: they both are )

Paradoxically, those who oppose capital punishment on these grounds are assuming the state has a sort of totalitarian capacity which it does not in fact possess, a power to frustrate the whole of one’s existence. Since a death imposed by one man on another can remove neither the latter’s moral goal nor his human worth, it is still more incapable of preventing the operation of God’s justice, which sits in judgment on all our adjudications.

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. - St. Augustine, Sermon 13.8

 

[DavidLukenbill]

They are different, but the essence of what is being said is the same.

So true, and what this discussion has revealed is that the answer to the original question the thread posed: “Did the Catholic Church’s teaching on the death penalty change?”
is no; though the words used may differ, their meaning and the teaching, is essentially the same.

 

[Ender]

They are different, but the essence of what is being said is the same.

If the essence was the same this discussion wouldn’t exist. We are debating the topic because there are two very different views of what the church actually teaches regarding capital punishment. The 1997 version makes a claim about the traditional teaching that appears to be contradicted by statements going back to the creation of the church.

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. - St. Augustine, Sermon 13.8

I am familiar with this citation and it is important to note that while Augustine requests that the death penalty not be used he nowhere suggests that the state does not possess the moral right to do so. For whatever practical reason he urges restraint in its use he does not raise a moral objection, and in fact recognizes that it is sometimes necessary.
A judge must often condemn some to be executed even though he is not pleased with the necessity. As far as he can he avoids the shedding of blood, but at the same time he must protect the public order. To use violence in such instances is part of the duties of his profession. (Sermon 302,16)
Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

It has been said that it often takes at least 50 years to determine the correct analysis of an ecumenical council.

Here are some quotes from a really excellent book I am now reading that can possibly clear up some of the misunderstanding regarding Vatican II around the capital punishment issue.

“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)

“The style of discourse the council adopted was, …made up of two essential elements, a genre and a vocabulary appropriate to it….

“The genre…is what the Roman authors called…the panegyric, and its home is in what is traditionally known as humanistic culture…

“Its goal is the winning of internal assent, not the imposition of conformity from the outside…

“While it raises appreciation, it creates or fosters among those it addresses a realization that they all share (or should share) the same ideals and need to work together to achieve them.” (pp. 46-48)

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

 

[Ender]

It has been said that it often takes at least 50 years to determine the correct analysis of an ecumenical council.

The catechism was not promulgated by the council. According to the catechism at the link you provided the suggestion for a catechism was not made until 1985.This fact confirms how fitting was the request submitted to me in 1985 by the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding faith and morals be composed.
Ender

 

[DavidLukenbill]

The catechism was not promulgated by the council. According to the catechism at the link you provided the suggestion for a catechism was not made until 1985.

Of course, but as Pope John Paul II wrote::

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM
ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
PREPARED FOLLOWING THE
SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

To my Venerable Brothers the Cardinals,
to the Archbishops,
Bishops,
Priests,
Deacons and all the People of God

JOHN PAUL II, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

I. INTRODUCTION

Guarding the deposit of faith is the mission which the Lord has entrusted to his Church and which she fulfils in every age. The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which was opened 30 years ago by my predecessor Pope John XXIII, of happy memory, had as its intention and purpose to highlight the Church’s apostolic and pastoral mission, and by making the truth of the Gospel shine forth, to lead all people to seek and receive Christ’s love which surpasses all knowledge (cf. Eph 3:19).

The principal task entrusted to the Council by Pope John XXIII was to guard and present better the precious deposit of Christian doctrine in order to make it more accessible to the Christian faithful and to all people of good will. For this reason the Council was not first of all to condemn the errors of the time, but above all to strive calmly to show the strength and beauty of the doctrine of the faith. “Illumined by the light of this Council”, the Pope said, "the Church… will become greater in spiritual riches and, gaining the strength of new energies therefrom, she will look to the future without fear… Our duty is… to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, thus pursuing the path which the Church has followed for 20 centuries."1

With the help of God, the Council Fathers in four years of work were able to produce a considerable collection of doctrinal statements and pastoral norms which were presented to the whole Church. There the Pastors and Christian faithful find directives for that “renewal of thought, action, practices and moral virtue, of joy and hope, which was the very purpose of the Council”.2

After its conclusion the Council did not cease to inspire the Church’s life. In 1985 I was able to assert: “For me, then - who had the special grace of participating in it and actively collaborating in its development - Vatican II has always been, and especially during these years of my Pontificate, the constant reference point of my every pastoral action, in the conscious commitment to implement its directives concretely and faithfully at the level of each Church and the whole Church”.3

In this spirit, on 25 January 1985 I convoked an Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the 20th anniversary of the close of the Council. The purpose of this assembly was to celebrate the graces and spiritual fruits of Vatican II, to study its teaching in greater depth in order the better to adhere to it and to promote knowledge and application of it.

On that occasion the Synod Fathers stated: "Very many have expressed the desire that a catechism or compendium of all Catholic doctrine regarding both faith and morals be composed, that it might be, as it were, a point of reference for the catechisms or compendiums that are prepared in various regions. The presentation of doctrine must be biblical and liturgical. It must be sound doctrine suited to the present life of Christians"4. After the Synod ended, I made this desire my own, considering it as “fully responding to a real need both of the universal Church and of the particular Churches”.5 For this reason we thank the Lord wholeheartedly on this day when we can offer the entire Church this reference text entitled the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for a catechesis renewed at the living sources of the faith!

Following the renewal of the Liturgy and the new codification of the canon law of the Latin Church and that of the Oriental Catholic Churches, this catechism will make a very important contribution to that work of renewing the whole life of the Church, as desired and begun by the Second Vatican Council.

Retrieved August 12, 2013 from vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19921011_fidei-depositum_en.html

 

[LongingSoul]

I am familiar with this citation and it is important to note that while Augustine requests that the death penalty not be used he nowhere suggests that the state does not possess the moral right to do so. For whatever practical reason he urges restraint in its use he does not raise a moral objection, and in fact recognizes that it is sometimes necessary.
A judge must often condemn some to be executed even though he is not pleased with the necessity. As far as he can he avoids the shedding of blood, but at the same time he must protect the public order. To use violence in such instances is part of the duties of his profession. (Sermon 302,16)
Ender

Why would Augustine have used his influence as Bishop to dissuade the use of the death penalty if it was crucial to redressing the divine order? Don’t you find him to have been using his position immorally by doing this if the death of the criminal is the ‘supreme obedience’ to God?

 

[dudleysharp]

“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.

David:

I think that is how strong the Church’s error was.

They have to “discard” their entire thesis which is the foundation of this new teaching. Why, because they misinterpreted the original teaching.

In addition to all of the other problems.

It is just terrible and requires a complete re write.

 

[dudleysharp]

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. snip

Ender

It appears that folks have been looking for that for some 18 years, without success.

That was the primary reason I provided the email to the Catholic scholar who has so criticized this particular error of the Church.

If anyone would have been showered with rebuttal, it would have been him. Yet, I have found no such rebuttal.

Has anyone?

 

[dudleysharp]

I can understand, you not being Catholic, have no loyalty to Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis and the body of theologians loyal to the pilgrim Church, its doctrines and tradition (I make no distinction between these men and the Fathers before them at all). There is a well documented history of Protestantism that rejects the authority of the Pope and claim that Catholic doctrine contradicts the bible. I simply don’t understand why catholics, given the graces of confirmation to grow beyond a self-centered spirituality to live for others and ***strengthening ***our bonds with the Church… can keep saying that ‘the Church is wrong’, ‘the Pope is wrong’, … in error… mistaken… or God forbid, evil. It baffles me beyond belief.

I think that is because you are not following Church teachings.

I have a loyalty to the truth, as does the Church.

The Church agrees that this matter is one of a prudential judgement and as such, any good Catholic, with respect for the Church, may disagree with the Church and the last 3 popes.

But, it goes much deeper than that, in that the Church has wrongly used a foundation for this newest teachings which either does not exist in Church history or the Church has misinterpreted the teaching and thus, either represents an error in foundation for the change.

Again, as a matter of doctrine, I am not sure how the Church can usurp a primary purpose, redress/justice with a secondary one - defense of society.

Not to mention the factual error still exists that capital punishment is a greater protector of society than lesser sanctions.

 

[dudleysharp]

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

Ender

I believe over the years I have found 5 different versions, three at the Vatican site.

I believe the last one is copyrighted 2003 and is

copyright 2003 11 04
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Y.HTM

Which is the same as Ender’s, but one page earlier, where I start my review.

The first page of that latest CCC is the index, here

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[LongingSoul]

It has always been regarded as ‘self defense’ by the Church…

"But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good, as in the case of a soldier fighting against the foe, and in the minister of the judge struggling with robbers, although even these sin if they be moved by private animosity. " S.T. II-II, 64 art7

In describing the principle of double effect, Aquinas distinguishes between the motive intended and the accidental result. Now in our time with scenarios such as the death of a child in an ectopic pregnancy or even a scenario like the men of the Titanic choosing their own deaths in order that the women and children could be saved, it’s apparent that defense of self and defense of the common good can require a deliberate and pre-known death of another or self. If the that defense did not require the death of another, it should of course never be taken since it would be an immoderate and unnecessary reaction and therefore immoral.

Aren’t you the least bit uncomfortable arguing that the church and her great theologians couldn’t properly understand the nature of capital punishment through mere revelation but had to wait for the construction of super-max prisons to see things in “a clearer light”?

Ender

I’m not at all uncomfortable arguing that we are a pilgrim Church and we live our faith in the light of our times. The great theologians of the past are one family with the great theologians of today. We’re not meant to raise any one theologian to a status of idol, infallible and supreme. That only applies to the Pope speaking from the chair of Peter ( ex Cathedra). The good Thomas Aquinas rejected the Immaculate conception and Assumption of Mary up until his death, but the Holy Spirit kept insisting through the people that she take her rightful place in faith. Who goes back and berates St Thomas? No one. That’s indicative of a serious lack of theological humility.

 

[LongingSoul]

And I might add, you guys are really closer than you might think since both of you , now, agree that the Catholic Church supports capital punishment, but you appear to be discussing the specific whys and wherefores, but still an very interesting discussion.

David, I wouldn’t say the Church ‘supports’ capital punishment since that implies something about capital punishment that it is not. I would say it ‘permits’ it providing the public good is being served, ‘does not exclude recourse to…’ it, etc. All the terms the Church uses to teach on the subject. Wording is very important. If I was a passenger on a liner, I wouldn’t say ‘I support ballast dumping’ because that makes it sound like it is a necessary function of a ship. I’d say I allow for the possibility of it in the unfortunate event of an unbalanced ship load that would result in sinking or tipping over. Ballast dumping would be pretty dangerous and consequently immoral, if it were done arbitrarily and not solely motivated by the physical balance of the ship.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

David:

I think that is how strong the Church’s error was.

They have to “discard” their entire thesis which is the foundation of this new teaching. Why, because they misinterpreted the original teaching.

In addition to all of the other problems.

It is just terrible and requires a complete re write.

Dudley:

We can go back and forth saying the Church erred and no she hasn’t forever; but careful reading of the capital punishment sections in the catechism will often result in an increased understanding that there is no error, merely the use of more pastoral language, as for instance in the sentence from 2266: “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense” which some claim is incorrect because they believe the primary aim of punishment is retribution, but my *Oxford Thesaurus *explains that a synonym of redress is retribution so the sentence could just as well have read “Punishment has the primary aim of retribution”

Again, the language may have changed, but the **essential **meaning hasn’t.

 

[LongingSoul]

I think that is because you are not following Church teachings.

I have a loyalty to the truth, as does the Church.

That’s a bit rude. I’ve been a Catholic since I was 2 days old and my entire life has been steeped in active and practiced Catholicism.

The Church agrees that this matter is one of a prudential judgement and as such, any good Catholic, with respect for the Church, may disagree with the Church and the last 3 popes.

I don’t even bother getting into the argument that the penal system isn’t good enough yet to let go of the death penalty. That is your argument as Americans really. In Queensland where I live, the death penalty was abolished in 1922 because it was recognised then as unjust. It was over represented by minority groups who were being oppressed by classism and prejudice at every turn and a convenient tool of undesirables cleansing.

But, it goes much deeper than that, in that the Church has wrongly used a foundation for this newest teachings which either does not exist in Church history or the Church has misinterpreted the teaching and thus, either represents an error in foundation for the change.

Again, as a matter of doctrine, I am not sure how the Church can usurp a primary purpose, redress/justice with a secondary one - defense of society.

The Church has never claimed that the State *must *impose the death penalty. Immanuel Kant held that the state had a strict duty to impose death for capital crimes but this has never been the Catholic stance.

"Retribution, in John Paul’s view, is still the “primary” aim of punishment—primary in the sense that it is the necessary condition for all just punishments. If a person has done nothing wrong, if a person is innocent, then punishment should never be inflicted upon him.

Retributive justice and the dignity of the prisoner necessarily go together. In virtue of the dignity of the human person, human beings are held to higher standards of behavior than are wild animals or acts of nature. When a human being knowingly and willingly does evil, a proper response to this behavior is just punishment. Retribution requires that serious crimes are met with serious punishments, and that lighter punishments are imposed for more insignificant crimes. Murder should therefore be punished in a very sever manner, such as lifetime imprisonment, but there is no moral necessity that murder be punished by death." - Christopher Kaczor
catholic.com/magazine/articles/did-the-church-change-its-teaching-on-the-death-penalty

Not to mention the factual error still exists that capital punishment is a greater protector of society than lesser sanctions.

Not if it derives its authority only from the base animalistic truth which esteems survival of the fittest. Evidence that this is true is the tolerance of abortion, euthanasia and other examples of the strong eliminating the weak through death judgements.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

David, I wouldn’t say the Church ‘supports’ capital punishment since that implies something about capital punishment that it is not. I would say it ‘permits’ it providing the public good is being served, ‘does not exclude recourse to…’ it, etc. All the terms the Church uses to teach on the subject. Wording is very important. If I was a passenger on a liner, I wouldn’t say ‘I support ballast dumping’ because that makes it sound like it is a necessary function of a ship. I’d say I allow for the possibility of it in the unfortunate event of an unbalanced ship load that would result in sinking or tipping over. Ballast dumping would be pretty dangerous and consequently immoral, if it were done arbitrarily and not solely motivated by the physical balance of the ship.

I know you do not agree with the word support, and while permit can also mean: allow, let, authorize, sanction, grant, empower, enable, give one’s blessing to, etc. I can also except that word; though I prefer support as I think it more clearly captures the proactive way in which St. Thomas Aquinas—and the majority of the Fathers of the Church—describe the position of the Church throughout time.