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

[dudleysharp]

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.

Not rude. Just truthful.

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.

I suspect that all sanctions in Queensland were subject to those same problems. Were all sanctions done away with? Likely not. Did Quennsland remedy those injustices? Likely. No need not to have the death penalty, now.

.

 

[dudleysharp]

Longingsoul:

Sorry, I messed up.

You wrote:

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.

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.

My reply:

Not rude. Just truthful. There is no doubt that good Catholics can disagree with the CCC and the last 3 popes on this issue, as many do. Hardly rude that I said that you do not appear to recognize that teaching.

I suspect that all sanctions in Queensland were subject to those same problems. Were all sanctions done away with? Likely not. Did Queensland remedy those injustices? Likely. No need not to have the death penalty, now.

 

[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?

I assume he had very practical reasons for his actions. It appears that he opposed the use of capital punishment against those who persecuted Christians even while recognizing the necessity of its use in other cases. Capital punishment has never been held to be an absolute requirement; the church has always accepted that there are cases where it should not be used even if the crime itself warrants such a penalty.

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

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.

David:

I think I have been reading the language, carefully, since 1995.

There is a definite error with regard to the traditional teachings of the Church, which was either falsely claimed or falsely interpreted, as discussed at length, with no rebuttal for many years.

There are other conflicts within 2267 which appear to need some correction, as well.

Redressing the disorder and just retribution are part of the same thing - just retribution is part of redress, just as redress is part of retribution - there is justice for the individuals, the guilty perpetrator and the innocent victim and for society - redressing the disorder by properly applying just retribution.

There is no conflict with the verbage used but I think there might be with the meanings and how they are synergistic.

2266: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.”

The Catechism states: “The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.” 2266 This is a specific reference to justice, just retribution, just deserts and the like, all of which redress the disorder.

We must first recognize the guilt/sin/crime of the aggressor and hold them accountable for that crime/sin/disorder by way of penalty, meaning the penalty should be just and appropriate for the sin/crime/disorder and should represent justice, retributive justice, just deserts and their like which “redress the disorder caused by the offence” or to correct an imbalance, as defined within the example “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” “This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

To “redress the disorder” has various relevant meanings – to make amends, to correct the imbalance, to set right, to remedy or to rectify, even reform, all of which may be used in the context of justice, just retribution or just deserts (and similar concepts), all of which have relevance in the context of the religious.

When it comes to reform, the second sentence is important:

2266: “When (the offender’s) punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation.”

The reformation and correction of the offender is a hoped for, even expected, component of justice or just deserts.

However, unlike the imposition of justice or retribution, which is mandatory, the reformation and/or moral correction of the offender will be voluntarily accepted or rejected by the offender, as a consequence of free will.

Retributive justice, just deserts and the like must be imposed. The correction or reform of the offender will be accepted or rejected by the offender.

The Catechism agrees, with:

2266 ending " . . . Moreover, punishment, in addition to preserving public order and the safety of persons, has a medicinal scope: as far as possible it should contribute to the correction of the offender."

" . . . as far as possible . . . " concedes that this is a sometimes proposition.

It is the same with God and his flock, as it is with parent and child. When a parent sanctions or punishes their child, they hope and often expect that such will bring about reflection, reform, redress and correction and, often, it does. It is a foundational to sanction.

Therefore, the foundation must be that we impose sanction based upon the evidence that the offender is guilty of the wrongdoing and because of that wrongdoing, we impose sanction, based upon justice (and its many similar considerations) and because of that justice, we reap the benefits of that justice, which include the protection of society and many other benefits, inclusive of the hope and expectation that some offenders will seek reform/redemption/correction, as a reflection in sanction and a product of grace.

A crucial element of that justice, which is reformation/correction of the offender, will always remain, a hoped for, but voluntary expression of free will by the offender, which may also provide, the immense value of expiation, when the punishment is “voluntarily accepted” (2266) by the offender.

Voluntary acceptance has four components. The offender/aggressor is guilty of the offense, the aggressor pleads guilty to the offense, the aggressor accepts the sanction imposed and the aggressor does not appeal the sanction imposed. Anything short of that appears to negate voluntary acceptance.

Expiation, a product of God’s grace, will be seized upon or rejected by the offender, based upon their own free will. It is arguable, as per Aquinas and Augustine, that the death penalty is better apt to provide that correction and is, therefore, more in tune with the eternal aspects of the wrongdoers salvation (see paragraphs/references 3 and 4 within Reference 2 and also 5, below).

As always, thank you.

 

[Ender]

"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

OK, I think this is about as good as you’ll find and there is some merit to the interpretation you give it, but I think it is still inadequate. The first thing to point out is that Aquinas addresses one point at a time and one should be careful in interpreting his comments on one topic as if they applied to another. For example in one place he says *“moral acts and habits take their name and species from their objects.” (II-II 19,3) while in another he says “moral acts take their species according to what is intended” (II-II 64,7). *In fact moral acts take their species from both but he is making a particular point in each case that causes him to stress one aspect but not the other. The point of this is that the citation you give comes from a section on self-defense; it is not about capital punishment.

Now, who is the “minister of the judge” Aquinas refers to? It is certainly not the judge himself so perhaps it is the executioner, and what is meant by “struggling” with robbers? Does he in fact mean, well, struggling rather than executing? Nor is there any particular reason to assume Aquinas doesn’t mean simply a jailor dealing with difficult prisoners.

Finally, if Aquinas is to be taken as the final authority on capital punishment, then what are we to make of his comments in the more relevant section on Vengeance (II-II 108)?

• What is it? “Vengeance consists in the infliction of a penal evil on one who has sinned.” (1)
• Who may impose it?* "For it is written (Romans 13:4) of the earthly prince that “he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” *(1,1)
• Should he impose capital punishment?* “These punishments are fixed by divine law”* (3,3)

We’re not meant to raise any one theologian to a status of idol, infallible and supreme.

Doesn’t this mean that a single citation from Aquinas is an insufficient basis on which to assert that capital punishment is a form of self-defense?

Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Doesn’t this mean that a single citation from Aquinas is an insufficient basis on which to assert that capital punishment is a form of self-defense?
Ender

Capital punishment is a form of self defense, but self defense is secondary to the primary function - redress, justice, just retribution.

Self defense is the known outcome of sanction, not the reason for it.

We also know the self defense aspects of having sanctions - laws - on the books - whereby potential criminals have been dissuaded from evil deeds based upon the fear of potential sanctions.

A note from CS Lewis

C. S. Lewis: "According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal. "

“I believe that the “Humanity” which it claims is a dangerous illusion and disguises the possibility of cruelty and injustice without end. I urge a return to the traditional or Retributive theory not solely, not even primarily, in the interests of society, but in the interests of the criminal.”

“The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert. But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.”

“My contention is that this (Humanitarian) doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.”

“Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether . . .”.

" . . . in the process of giving him what he deserved you set an example to others. But take away desert and the whole morality of the punishment disappears. Why, in Heaven’s name, am I to be sacrificed to the good of society in this way?—unless, of course, I deserve it. "

“The punishment of an innocent, that is , an undeserving, man is wicked only if we grant the traditional view that righteous punishment means deserved punishment.”

“But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.”

"This is why I think it essential to oppose the Humanitarian theory of punishment, root and branch, wherever we encounter it. It carries on its front a semblance of mercy which is wholly false. "

" . . . the Humanitarian theory wants simply to abolish Justice and substitute Mercy for it. Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful. " The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment

 

[Ender]

The Church has never claimed that the State *must *impose the death penalty.

True, but the church has claimed that the State *should *impose it.

"Retribution, in John Paul’s view, is still the “primary” aim of punishment…(Kaczor)

This is no small concession. Retribution is primary; protection, deterrence, and rehabilitation are all secondary.

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." (Kaczor)

This might carry some weight if he presented an argument to support this claim instead of simply asserting it.

Here are some other things he said which are also relevant. This one in particular recognizes that JPII’s position was prudential.John Paul, for his part, does not deny that the state has the right to impose the death penalty. The state retains this right, even though he thinks that the state ought not to make use of this right.

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. (Kaczor)

This is also a key point in that Kaczor recognizes that “just punishment” is not opposed to man’s dignity but rather confirms it. It should also be clear that the church has always held that death was a just punishment for certain crimes so it is difficult to understand how the just punishment of death has suddenly become contrary to man’s dignity when it is that very dignity that justifies its use.

Kaczor also said this, which ought to put an end to the suggestion that capital punishment is justified as a form of self-defense.The treatment of the death penalty is itself within Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism explicitly put in the context of punishment, not within the treatment of killing in self-defense.
He goes on to explain why this is so.Lethal, private self-defense is not justified in cases where the aggressor is incapable of inflicting harm, but that is precisely the circumstance in which capital punishment is exercised.
Ender

 

[dudleysharp]

Kaczor also said this, which ought to put an end to the suggestion that capital punishment is justified as a form of self-defense.The treatment of the death penalty is itself within Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism explicitly put in the context of punishment, not within the treatment of killing in self-defense.
He goes on to explain why this is so.Lethal, private self-defense is not justified in cases where the aggressor is incapable of inflicting harm, but that is precisely the circumstance in which capital punishment is exercised.
Ender

Ender:

Capital punishment provides both personal and societal self defense.

It seems likely that hundreds (maybe thousands) of innocents die, everyday, because of the irresponsibility of prison systems allowing unjust aggressors to harm and murder, again.

The Church needs to recognize and account for that.

The Holy See could find these types of cases, below, every day, seemingly, forever.

I removed a number of articles discussing other such cases, inclusive of tens of thousands of cell phones illegally smuggled into US prisons, for the purposes of running both in prison and free world criminal activity.​

“At least 20 members of the security forces were killed . . .” “. . . 500 (to 1200) prisoners had escaped from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison. Most of them were senior members of al-Qaeda who had been sentenced to death . . .”

“Iraq jailbreaks: Hundreds escape in Taji and Abu Ghraib”, BBC, 22 July 2013 Last updated at 13:54 ET

---

“Prisons and the Education of Terrorists”, Ian M. Cuthbertson, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, FALL 2004

“The use of prisons as a means of recruiting new membrs into terrorist organizations while providing advanced training to existing members is hardly a new phenomenon. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS (my emphasis) , European countries have been beset by a variety of nationalist and leftist terrorist groups, some of them highly sophisticated organizations with large rosters of combat and support personnel.”

" . . . terrorist groups were able to retain a large degree of cohesion within the prison setting, which they discovered to be a favorable environment for training members in new skills and planning future operations."

“Al-Qaeda and its network of associated organizations has taken full advantage of the relatively lax practices in European, and even some American, prisons. The pool of potential recruits is vast.”

" . . . in October 2003, John Pistole, the FBI’s executive assistant director of counterterrorism/counterintelligence, called U.S. correctional institutions a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda. Harley Lappin, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, sees the bloated prison population of disgruntled and violent inmates as being ‘particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.’

---

“The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells.”

“Hell in the heart of paradise”, 4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP

tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-in-heart-paradise-3174543

---

16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
theage.com.au/world/alqaeda-members-in-jailbreak-20090924-g4no.html

---

Repeat murderer escapes, murders, again.

Twice convicted murderer Alva “Campbell, faked paralysis and escaped from custody when he was being taken to court in a wheelchair. Using a gun he took form a deputy sheriff, he carjacked (Joe) Dials, 18, robbed and killed him.”

Campbell murdered another wonderful person, in 1972, William S. Dovalosky, from Cleveland.

Execution date set for Columbus killer, By Alan Johnson, The Columbus Dispatch, March 28, 2013 12:09PM

dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/03/28/execution-date-set-for-Columbus-killer.html

---

23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/massive_jailbreak_in_yemen.htm

---

Prison Gang Runs Prison, Drug Trafficking, Money Laundering and Impregnate 4 Guards:

“13 corrections officers indicted in Md., accused of aiding gang’s drug scheme”, Washington Post, 4/23/13

“The Black Guerilla Family was founded in California in the 1960s but now operates nationwide in prisons and on the streets of major U.S. cities, including Baltimore. It arrived in Maryland’s prison system in the 1990s, according to the Justice Department, and is increasingly involved in narcotics trafficking, robbery, assault and homicides. By 2006, federal authorities say, the BGF had become the dominant gang at the Baltimore City Detention Center.”

“The inmates literally took over ‘the asylum,’ and the detention centers became safe havens for BGF,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Stephen E. Vogt."

and on and on

 

[DavidLukenbill]

There is a definite error with regard to the traditional teachings of the Church, which was either falsely claimed or falsely interpreted, as discussed at length, with no rebuttal for many years.

There are other conflicts within 2267 which appear to need some correction, as well.

To begin, 2266 & 2267 from the Vatican Catechism at vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#I are here, in italics:

*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.”*

I don’t see much disagreement—other than a Protestant perspective of Catholic teaching versus a Catholic one (and having converted from Protestantism to Catholocisim, it is one I recognize)—in what you wrote.

The only thing that I can see in 2267 that is problematic is the second paragraph as it lends force to the argument that many make that super max prisons satisfy the “non-lethal means” so we can abolish capital punishment. I read it as it stands, with the “If”, and as anyone who is familiar with criminal justice issues, “If” has not yet arrived.

Perhaps someday it will, perhaps someday we can, like in one of the Superman movies, place evil aggressors within a state of suspension where, while alive, they are unconscious and unable to influence anyone or anything.

If that day ever arrives, then yes, it may be appropriate to talk of abolishing capital punishment, but only after serious study and reflection justifying the development of that doctrine per Catholic teaching.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

From my perspective, as a recent convert to the Catholic Church, any substantial discussion of Catholic Social Teaching has to be built on some serious study of the most magisterial resources of the teaching, which I have listed on the website of my apostolate here, lampstandfoundation.org/apostolate.html

The documents of Vatican II, are here, vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/index.htm

Also, one needs, at the very least, an general understanding of what happened at Vatican II, and of the good ones I have read, including Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century, by Romano Amerio and The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II, by Ralph Wiltgen, the one by John O’Malley, What Happened at Vatican II, may be the best—I’m still reading it so can’t fully endorse it as the best yet.

I have been studying these issues, virtually strictly from a Catholic basis, for 10 years now, and am still learning, as the depth and nuance—the clarity and ambiguity—of Catholic Social Teaching on issues around crime and punishment is vastly superior to that found anywhere else.

 

[dudleysharp]

I don’t see much disagreement—other than a Protestant perspective of Catholic teaching versus a Catholic one (and having converted from Protestantism to Catholocisim, it is one I recognize)—in what you wrote.

The only thing that I can see in 2267 that is problematic is the second paragraph as it lends force to the argument that many make that super max prisons satisfy the “non-lethal means” so we can abolish capital punishment. I read it as it stands, with the “If”, and as anyone who is familiar with criminal justice issues, “If” has not yet arrived.

Perhaps someday it will, perhaps someday we can, like in one of the Superman movies, place evil aggressors within a state of suspension where, while alive, they are unconscious and unable to influence anyone or anything.
.

Sadly, an ugh moment.

I have used Catholic teachings and scholars throughout, where required.

As with:

From Flannery

“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)

“simply wrong”

“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)

“inconsistency and incoherence”

Then, there is this factual error of

2267 "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

As detailed repeatedly, this is simply false and represents a profound ignorance of penal security around the world, inclusive of the US.

“very rare” or “practically non-existent” represents such astounding ignorance as to negate any consideration of prudence or judgement.

The Church simply made a factual statement when the evidence is to the contrary.

When we are discussing innocents at risk, which is the topic, here, it is incredible that the Church could make such a statement without any investigation of penal reality, which is what had to have occurred for the Church to make such a claim.

It is not too much to ask, in a document as important as a Catechism, for the Church to get it right on both traditional teachings and protecting innocents in criminal justice systems.

Is it?

 

[DavidLukenbill]

There are so many valuable resources for studying the social teaching, but of those listed on my website noted in the earlier post, perhaps the most user friendly are the two volume Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy and the recent *Supplement *

Here is what is written under the heading Death Penalty:

“Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the traditional teaching that the state has authority to impose the death penalty. His *Evangelium Vitae *and the Catechism of the Catholic Church have provided a new development of the teaching as to the use of that authority…

“Under this teaching, a Catholic can rightly support the use of the death penalty only in cases that satisfy the enhanced requirement of absolute necessity, when it would not be possible to otherwise defend society.…

“This severe restriction on the use of the death penalty arises from the importance of the conversion of the criminal. St. Augustine and St. Thomas agree that “for a just man to be made from a sinner is greater than to create heaven and earth” (STh, I, II, Q. 113, art. 9)” (Volume 1, pp. 282-283, Italics in original)

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Sadly, an ugh moment.

I didn’t mean for it to be “an ugh moment” and if I have offended you I am truly sorry.

But, the truth is, that without an understanding of the Catholic fact that teaching emanating from an ecumenical council of all the bishops headed by Peter, then expressed through the Catechism, cannot be in error, cannot be; but there can be misunderstanding, and that is what we see from so many, misunderstanding; which is why it is so crucial to study, study, and study some more; for while we, as Catholics, can rely on Peter, we may have to dig to really understand him.

 

[dudleysharp]

I am not sure which is the most updated.

Help.

This should be the most updated ccc, here:

vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

Which goes to the ccc I use

but . . .

My recollection is that the Church realized it had to get rid of the “bloodless means” because of the obvious conflict and replaced it with the version David uses.

However, if you go to the vatican home page and put Catechism into the search engine, it goes to the one I used.

I don’t know how I switched back, if I did.

---

The link David uses goes to:

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."68

---

This is to my link:

2267 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.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]

 

[dudleysharp]

I didn’t mean for it to be “an ugh moment” and if I have offended you I am truly sorry.

But, the truth is, that without an understanding of the Catholic fact that teaching emanating from an ecumenical council of all the bishops headed by Peter, then expressed through the Catechism, cannot be in error, cannot be; but there can be misunderstanding, and that is what we see from so many, misunderstanding; which is why it is so crucial to study, study, and study some more; for while we, as Catholics, can rely on Peter, we may have to dig to really understand him.

You never offend me. You are always helpful and corrective in the best manner.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

I am not sure which is the most updated.This should be the most updated ccc, here:

vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm

Your’e right, two different versions (perhaps even more) are online at the Vatican, and yours is the one that is accessed through the Vatican’s front door portal, mine is one I bookmarked, but both saying essentially the same thing; as is true of virtually all of the national versions I have seen, they say essentially the same thing though various national conferences of bishops interpret the ambiguity to call for abolition.

Going to the Vatican Home Page, vatican.va/phome_en.htm then clicking on Resource Library vatican.va/archive/index.htm then clicking on Catechism of the Catholic Church vatican.va/archive/ccc/index.htm takes us to a version that we could consider the latest but it does not have the full version of the pirnted one including the Apostolic Letter & Constitution, as does this one on the Vatican website, at vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm and it is the one I will continue to use.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

Here is where a lot of the problems with different versions of Catholic documents originates, which I didn’t understand until a couple year after baptism.

All important Catholic documents are published in Latin, and then translated out to the various languages.

Using the first and second edition of the Catechism in English as an example, as the first edition was one most conservatives liked, but the Church determined that there were still problems with the translation from the Latin; so, after consultation with all of the bishops of the Church and the Pope, the second edition came out, which most liberals like for its increased ambiguity, and, which is now, by the fact of it being the last edition printed, the definitive edition in English.

I don’t anticipate a new catechism being printed unless there is another ecumenical council.

Since the catechism accessed from the front door portal of the Vatican website—and who translated it I do not know, could be the Italian, or French, or English Conference of Bishops, who knows—but it does not correspond with the definitive printed second edition, I, and I would assume most conservative Catholics, will stick with the one online at the Vatican which does, and again, the website is: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

 

[dudleysharp]

Your’e right, two different versions (perhaps even more) are online at the Vatican, and yours is the one that is accessed through the Vatican’s front door portal, mine is one I bookmarked, but both saying essentially the same thing; as is true of virtually all of the national versions I have seen, they say essentially the same thing though various national conferences of bishops interpret the ambiguity to call for abolition.
.

I do think using the correct CCC matters. They changed it for a reason.

It was my understanding that they changed from my linked example, because of this glaring problem.

2267 continues:

“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

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

The Catechism decides that a stated and well known eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security.

 

[DavidLukenbill]

I do think using the correct CCC matters. They changed it for a reason.

It was my understanding that they changed from my linked example, because of this glaring problem.

2267 continues:

“If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

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

The Catechism decides that a stated and well known eternal biblical mandate should be overruled by a poorly considered dependence on current penal security.

I don’t see the conflicts you do. It seems both are saying essentially the same thing, though with different language.

 

[Ender]

Capital punishment provides both personal and societal self defense.

Capital punishment does provide protection but it is not justified on that basis; the need to protect society does not justify the use of capital punishment.

Ender