E
Esodo
Guest
This is something I really struggle with. Did the Catechism change definitely change Church teaching or disprove the Church?
Last edited:
- Status
A
angel12
Guest
Of course it doesn’t “disprove the Church.” The teaching on the death penalty was not and is not dogma. Teachings can develop as our understanding develops, and as human society changes.
W
Wesrock
Guest
No. Prudential judgment about the appropriateness of the death penalty in specific historical circumstances is fine.
Plus, the CCC is not part of the extraordinary magisterium.
W
Wampa
Guest
Weclome to CAF, Esodo!
FYI, this topic has been discussed at length (as in thousands of posts) here on CAF over the last year. The “regulars” who debate the topic may not want to repeat themselves, so you might want to avail yourself of the CAF search feature.
Here are a few recent ones I found:
Can the Church error in matters of faith and morals that aren't doctrinal? Moral Theology
Pope Francis, Death Penalty, and Infallibility Moral Theology
Could the pope change the position on the death penalty in the future? Moral Theology
FYI, this topic has been discussed at length (as in thousands of posts) here on CAF over the last year. The “regulars” who debate the topic may not want to repeat themselves, so you might want to avail yourself of the CAF search feature.
Here are a few recent ones I found:
P
phil19034
Guest
No, because it is a prudential judgement and discipline.
The change in the catechism doesn’t say that the death penalty, in of itself, is immoral. It’s just making the argument that in most modern countries it is not needed, therefore must not be used.
Let’s remember that in the past, prisons were literal hell holes and literal dungeons (basements) with dirt floors or towers (attics) with no escape.
So in many ways, death was a mercy back in the old days. However, today, prisons are modern and have all the comforts (if not more) of an early 20th century middle class home.
However, I will argue that I don’t think the change was needed because Pope St. John Paul II already represented a significant change. I don’t understand why Pope Francis’ change was necessary.
God bless
Last edited:
A
alphonsus1
Guest
No, a development in a prudential judgement is also a prudential judgment. The update to the Catechism notes new methods to detain criminals. This is Pope Francis’s evaluation of the circumstances of the act of the death penalty. Since circumstances require empirical verification, that is, knowledge of the outside world beyond faith and morals, perhaps an atheist professor could have specific knowledge of detention schemes in developing countries that the Pope does not have. For this reason, Pope Benedict says that sincere disagreement with the Pope on evaluating the circumstances of an act does not preclude one from receiving Holy Communion.
Finally, it is not a change in the object, the inherent nature of the act, because there is no change in word choice used to denote the object: “by its very nature”, “in itself”, “intrinsically immoral” , “intrinsically evil,” and so on. And the accompanying clarification by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says this update is NOT to be interpreted in contradiction to previous church teaching.
Therefore, in summary, this is a prudential judgement of the circumstances of the act. The Pope is saying that based on his weighing of the costs and benefits of the death penalty (which to reiterate are not binding issues of faith and morals because we do not believe God gives the Pope specific scientific, empirical knowledge about the world around us without having to do any studies in the first place to acquire that knowledge), that there do not exist circumstances for which the death penalty is permissible. This is why the Pope, in his judgment, calls it “inadmissible.”
Finally, it is not a change in the object, the inherent nature of the act, because there is no change in word choice used to denote the object: “by its very nature”, “in itself”, “intrinsically immoral” , “intrinsically evil,” and so on. And the accompanying clarification by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says this update is NOT to be interpreted in contradiction to previous church teaching.
Therefore, in summary, this is a prudential judgement of the circumstances of the act. The Pope is saying that based on his weighing of the costs and benefits of the death penalty (which to reiterate are not binding issues of faith and morals because we do not believe God gives the Pope specific scientific, empirical knowledge about the world around us without having to do any studies in the first place to acquire that knowledge), that there do not exist circumstances for which the death penalty is permissible. This is why the Pope, in his judgment, calls it “inadmissible.”
Last edited:
T
Thom18
Guest
No. I got fairly deep into this awhile ago when I was writing an article for my Parish newsletter.
This change represents decades of Church teaching finding its (so far) fulfillment. The first catechism which was published said (in essence) that the death penalty was admissible, but even then stressed that it should be avoided, if possible, in hopes of bringing death row inmates to repentance. The Catechism was updated just a few years later in response to an encyclical by St. Pope John Paul II, making the language against the death penalty even stronger. Last year, Pope Francis agreed with the CDF in its conclusion that, in our modern age, with all of our social and technological advancements, that the death penalty has no place in the justice system (though this mostly applies to nations such as the US where we have relative assurance that the condemned will remain behind bars).
Pope Francis says that the death penalty is inadmissible, and his conclusion would only be troubling if he said that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, but this wasn’t what he said. His proclamation allows for further changes in response to new social and technological situations. If, for example, we lost all of this progress we’ve made, a future Pope could roll back this teaching and allow for us to go back to the “old way” of seeing the death penalty. An issue like this is one that can (and must) change in response to our situation, so there’s no reason to worry about it.
This change represents decades of Church teaching finding its (so far) fulfillment. The first catechism which was published said (in essence) that the death penalty was admissible, but even then stressed that it should be avoided, if possible, in hopes of bringing death row inmates to repentance. The Catechism was updated just a few years later in response to an encyclical by St. Pope John Paul II, making the language against the death penalty even stronger. Last year, Pope Francis agreed with the CDF in its conclusion that, in our modern age, with all of our social and technological advancements, that the death penalty has no place in the justice system (though this mostly applies to nations such as the US where we have relative assurance that the condemned will remain behind bars).
Pope Francis says that the death penalty is inadmissible, and his conclusion would only be troubling if he said that the death penalty is intrinsically evil, but this wasn’t what he said. His proclamation allows for further changes in response to new social and technological situations. If, for example, we lost all of this progress we’ve made, a future Pope could roll back this teaching and allow for us to go back to the “old way” of seeing the death penalty. An issue like this is one that can (and must) change in response to our situation, so there’s no reason to worry about it.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
No.
Whether or not we can have a death penalty is not, and never has been, a dogma or even a doctrine of the Church.
Whether or not we can have a death penalty is not, and never has been, a dogma or even a doctrine of the Church.
J
jag
Guest
People can rationalize anything. Maybe the licitness of the death penalty was not technically a “dogma”, but it was established doctrine declared since the times of the Fathers and even during the Middle Ages a pope required an heretical group to accept the licitness of the DP as a condition to be readmited in the Church.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
People can also rationalize any reason to be annoyed with the Church or with the current Pope or with a change to some practice that they hold dear, such as the ability to put people to death.
E
Esodo
Guest
So are you saying this definitely disproves the Church?
M
Mary888
Guest
I undertsand the logic behind the need of the death penalty however, if I were to vote, I could never vote for the death penalty.
E
Esodo
Guest
Woah you greatly misinterpreted me there. I have heard the other answers and I have been reassured by them. I simply wanted to know what that users position was before engaging a bit. No I don’t want to leave the Church. I am scrupulous but I have never considered leaving.
E
Esodo
Guest
This was a fantastic and assuring answer! I’m gonna save it
E
Esodo
Guest
This is a good perspective I need to remember. You and another user have calmed me and convinced me for sure
J
jag
Guest
I’m not saying such thing.
G
Genesis315
Guest
As Cardinal Ratzinger noted on the authority of the Catechism:
The infallibility of the Pope, like that of the Church as a whole, only applies to those truths which are revealed (which must be believed with faith) or necessarily connected to revelation (which must be definitively held). These things are irreformable and unity in these things is necessary for communion in the Church.
No where does Pope Francis indicate his proposition is being put forth as either of these things. No where does he say accepting this is necessary for communion. Nowhere does he say what he is saying is irreformable or definitive (in fact, his whole premise is based on reform based on changing circumstances). Nowhere has the Church ever taught it is one of these things. By using the Catechism as a vehicle, it demonstrates his intent not to elevate this proposition to anything more than it ever was–at the very best a practical application (again, if, God forbid, he thinks it is more than this, he is in error, but putting an error into the Catechism doesn’t make it more than it was before). He could certainly be in error when proposing something in this way.
In addition, the whole Church has not received it as if it meant the death penalty has always been per se immoral (it seems most bishops received it as a practical judgment for our circumstances), so the whole Church is not implicated. Pope Francis did not propose it as something to be definitively held, so papal infallibility as not been implicated.
He elaborates further on this point:
It is clearly established in Scripture and Tradition that the death penalty is not unjust as a proportionate punishment or as a defensive measure. No Pope could overturn this. If Pope Francis thinks otherwise, he is in error. On the other hand, we don’t have to have the death penalty–it is perfectly allowable to believe the common good is better served by its abolition or that a policy of mercy or giving time for reform is the better course.
The infallibility of the Pope, like that of the Church as a whole, only applies to those truths which are revealed (which must be believed with faith) or necessarily connected to revelation (which must be definitively held). These things are irreformable and unity in these things is necessary for communion in the Church.
No where does Pope Francis indicate his proposition is being put forth as either of these things. No where does he say accepting this is necessary for communion. Nowhere does he say what he is saying is irreformable or definitive (in fact, his whole premise is based on reform based on changing circumstances). Nowhere has the Church ever taught it is one of these things. By using the Catechism as a vehicle, it demonstrates his intent not to elevate this proposition to anything more than it ever was–at the very best a practical application (again, if, God forbid, he thinks it is more than this, he is in error, but putting an error into the Catechism doesn’t make it more than it was before). He could certainly be in error when proposing something in this way.
In addition, the whole Church has not received it as if it meant the death penalty has always been per se immoral (it seems most bishops received it as a practical judgment for our circumstances), so the whole Church is not implicated. Pope Francis did not propose it as something to be definitively held, so papal infallibility as not been implicated.
Last edited:
E
Ender
Guest
This is a significant point: the teaching on capital punishment has been held unchanged since the Early Fathers. If that doesn’t represent doctrine it is hard to imagine what would qualify. As to whether it represents infallible dogma that position requires the church herself to proclaim it (as JPII did on the inadmissibility of women priests), but a strong argument can be made that it does.
There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty. (Fr. John Hardon)
Just to be clear here: a prudential judgment opposing the use of capital punishment because of existing conditions in no way contradicts the moral legitimacy of the penalty itself.
Last edited:
Emeraldlady
New member
Just to be clear. This directly rejects St John Paul II’s teaching.
“A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.” (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).
If something ‘takes away the dignity of human life’. If something is ‘cruel and unnecessary’, then it is clearly immoral to do it.
If executing a criminal can no longer be claimed as a legitimate defense it violates the 5th commandment.
E
Ender
Guest
Just to be extra clear: no, it doesn’t. If JPII was speaking prudentially, as I and the first seven posters understand it, then there is no conflict between JPII and me or, more significantly, JPII and 2000 years of Catholic teaching.
If your statement means that capital punishment is now supposed to be intrinsically evil then we have a serious problem, not least of which is that JPII explicitly accepted capital punishment when necessary to protect the public.
Again, this is incorrect. Punishment has never been justified primarily as a means of defense.
- Status