Did the Death Penalty change in the Catechism disprove the Church?

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Just to be clear. This directly rejects St John Paul II’s teaching.

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.

We know exactly how St JPII understood it because he made many, many statements leaving us in no doubt.

“May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world.” (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

To recap the earlier posts, all agree that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil but must be abolished if the circumstances cause it to be evil.

Glad you agree with that.

If something ‘takes away the dignity of human life’. If something is ‘cruel and unnecessary’, then it is clearly immoral to do it.

This deficiency of understanding is yours. That something is not ‘intrinsically evil’ does not mean that it can never be evil. It can be extrinsically evil, that is, in some circumstances it can do more harm than good to society rendering it unworthy, cruel, unnecessary. To continue to do something that has that effect on the dignity of people is immoral.

Can you answer me this question. Do you believe that a thing can be extrinsically evil even though it is not intrinsically evil? I’m guessing you won’t answer these types of questions.

If executing a criminal can no longer be claimed as a legitimate defense it violates the 5th commandment.

But the sentences imposed primarily serve the common good. If a sentence is not serving the common good it is an injustice.

 

[Ender]

To recap the earlier posts, all agree that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil but must be abolished if the circumstances cause it to be evil.

The evaluation of what to do in differing “circumstances” is a prudential judgment, one which each of us is free to make for himself.

That something is not ‘intrinsically evil’ does not mean that it can never be evil. It can be extrinsically evil, that is, in some circumstances it can do more harm than good to society rendering it unworthy, cruel, unnecessary. To continue to do something that has that effect on the dignity of people is immoral.

You recognize that capital punishment is not intrinsically, but you still want to act as if it is. I there is disagreement about whether its use is harmful to society one side will be correct and the other incorrect, so one side will erred, but neither side will have sinned. Again, it is not a moral choice.

Do you believe that a thing can be extrinsically evil even though it is not intrinsically evil?

Define the term “extrinsically evil.”

If a sentence is not serving the common good it is an injustice.

No, it would be a mistake. It would be an injustice only if the sentence was inappropriate for the crime, or if it was handed down with the expectation that it would be harmful. If it was commensurate with the crime and no harm to the community was expected then, even if harm occurred it would not be a sinful act.

 

[Dovekin]

This is how the Catechism reads now, after Francis changed it last August.

The death penalty

1. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Catechism of the Catholic Church 2267

 

[Dovekin]

It would be an injustice only if the sentence was inappropriate for the crime, or if it was handed down with the expectation that it would be harmful. If it was commensurate with the crime and no harm to the community was expected then, even if harm occurred it would not be a sinful act.

Pope John Paul II changed the Catechism’s paragraph on the death penalty after he published Evangelium Vitae. According to Cardinal Ladaria, with those changes “the death penalty is not presented as a proportionate penalty for the gravity of the crime, but it can be justified if it is “the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor,” even if in reality “cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender today are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Pope Francis has changed the text again in a way that emphasizes the evil done by it: “the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.” The dignity of the individual is a positive good, and that has changed our understanding. Removing that good is harmful to society and not just the individual. There is still an opportunity for a prudential judgment on the defense of society, but the Catechism is closer to saying that killing another person is an intrinsic evil.

 

[ascetic]

Maybe I’m missing something. I just looked up the catechism in the Laudate app and didn’t see anything I don’t remember. It’s possible there has been a change they don’t link to. What change has there been?

 

[Ender]

…“the death penalty is not presented as a proportionate penalty for the gravity of the crime, but it can be justified if it is “the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor,”…

Consider this: the death penalty is not a proportionate penalty for the gravity of the crime, but it can still be justified? Two things are required to make any punishment just: it must be commensurate with the severity of the crime, and its application must be expected not to harm society. Your interpretation holds that we may impose an unjust punishment on someone if it benefits us. This cannot be accurate.

There is still an opportunity for a prudential judgment on the defense of society…

The use of capital punishment is in fact a prudential judgment which belongs with those who have responsibility for the good of the community. That is, the decision belongs to the government.

…the Catechism is closer to saying that killing another person is an intrinsic evil.

That cannot happen. If it did it would bring about the very condition that concerned the OP.

The death penalty is not intrinsically evil. Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. The Church cannot repudiate that without repudiating her own identity. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

 

[SeekSalvation]

Pope Francis changes teaching on death penalty, it’s ‘inadmissible’

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/08...s-teaching-on-death-penalty-its-inadmissible/

 

[Dovekin]

Earlier today I posted the new text for paragraph 2267 of the Catechism. If that is the text in the Laudate app, then they have made the change, perhaps without noting it. There is no particular reason they should say that paragraph is different now from what it was a year ago.

 

[Usagi]

“Death is a just punishment for certain crimes, but Christians should not support its actual infliction” is not an internally contradictory statement.

In our very Scriptures, the same God who handed down the death penalty for certain acts also preached against demanding strict justice when mercy and charity were an option, especially if such had been shown to you (in the Sermon on the Mount and in the parable of the ungrateful servant). If the pericope of the adulteress is true (and I believe it is accepted canon even though evidence suggests it was not part of at least the original edition of John’s Gospel), He personally pardoned a woman who was liable to the death penalty. And of course, our entire religion is built around God/Jesus going, “Hmm, in strict justice all my human children have sinned mortally and deserve eternal death … but I’ve always had a way around that in the plan.” Every last one of us has been pardoned of the just penalty of death and damnation, and Our Lord is pretty clear about demanding justice from others when we’ve been shown mercy ourselves. It is thus not surprising that the Church would eventually get around to following her Lord in emphasizing that the penalty of death is on the books to show the supreme value of life … but that same value means that we should not actually deal out death in individual cases if there is another option.

 

[Ender]

The Church has changed teachings in the past, and will change others in the future. Some mental gymnastics are required to understand things like usury or slavery or prostitution in accordance with “unchanging doctrine.”

“The church has changed in the past” suggests that no doctrine is safe from reversal in the future. The only reason to be a Catholic is if one believes what she teaches is true, and the repudiation of a doctrine that has been taught unchanged for two millennia, including by virtually every Father and Doctor of the Church, 260 odd popes, and proclaimed in councils and at least a half dozen catechisms would certainly make one doubt that the church has any real claim to the truth.

In our very Scriptures, the same God who handed down the death penalty for certain acts also preached against demanding strict justice when mercy and charity were an option, especially if such had been shown to you (in the Sermon on the Mount and in the parable of the ungrateful servant).

This position relies on personal interpretation of Scripture, and requires us to reject the interpretation the church herself took, including the teaching of St. Paul. It also provides no possibility of understanding the incident with Ananias and Sapphira.

The legitimacy of the death penalty is supported by Scripture, not contradicted by it.

Both Scripture and long Christian tradition acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment under certain circumstances. (Archbishop Chaput, 2005)

In Scripture and the classical tradition the death penalty was approved primarily on the ground that retribution was needed for the moral health of society. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

In Scripture and the classical tradition the death penalty was approved primarily on the ground that retribution was needed for the moral health of society. (St. Bellarmine, c1600)

How doth the Scripture teach that willful murder is revenged?..God’s own voice doth testify. Whoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed also, for to the image of God was man made. (St. Canisius, c1590)

 

[Dovekin]

The only reason to be a Catholic is if one believes what she teaches is true, and the repudiation of a doctrine that has been taught unchanged for two millennia

One reason to be a Catholic is to love Christ and the people he has gathered to be his own.

There are lots of other reasons.

 

[Esodo]

I have to disagree. The Church did not change infallible dogma on those things… If it ever definitely did it would disprove infallibility and kill the Church. The Church would be a liar.

 

[Esodo]

My problem is that I do not believe the teachings on that changed. At least not according to some great apologist on Catholics Answers own site. Not to mention some of the great answers on reddit I have received etc. The Church doesn’t just change with the wind, even if it wasn’t infallible teaching that would still be very problematic

 

[Genesis315]

The usury and slavery issues are good examples of how factual circumstances might leave something to the theoretical–this could certainly be a possible destiny of the death penalty too, but this is different than saying the death penalty is per se immoral–which would be a statement of an abstract principle.

Lateran V gave that principle for usury:

For, that is the real meaning of usury: when, from its use, a thing which produces nothing is applied to the acquiring of gain and profit without any work, any expense or any risk.

The essence of usury is getting something for nothing and the other person getting nothing for something. It is an unjust transaction–essentially one where one party is made better off at the expense of the other party being made worse off. This is why the lender can charge interest for his risk, expense, and work, since these things make him worse off. He is entitled to at least “break even.” He can also charge interest for a loan that produces something, since the borrower is being made better off by the loan and the lender could have used what he loaned to produce something and make himself better off.

In some economies and markets, such a transaction might be rare, while they are quite common in ours (usury is more common today where the interest charged exceeds the considerations above.)

As for slavery, the form that is an intrinsic evil is defined in the CCC as when people are “being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit.”

While the word “slavery” has come to exclusively carry that narrow meaning, in the past it had broader connotations that included just and reasonable titles to services.

One can acquire title to reasonable services justly (for example, through a voluntary exchange) and buy, sell, and exchange title to services. None of that violates the natural law. However, experience came to show that when such title was life long and the scope of service expansive, title was often not acquired justly and people were treated as merchandise/chattel (rather than their services) and in general not treated as human beings (see e.g. American slavery). It was also often accompanied by other evils. As the article below explains, the “just” slavery was almost exclusively theoretical and so you see general prohibitions on it from the Church after a certain period.

Even after this consensus, it was also sometimes considered a tolerable evil that would result in greater evils and disorder in society if quickly abolished. The wisdom or lack thereof in that position is a question of fact, not revealed truth. In the US, I think we can all agree abolition was well-worth its immediate and consequent high cost to the country (ie the Civil War and its aftermath).

More here:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm

The Church still does not condemn the ownership of title to someone’s reasonable services while treating them with human dignity. In fact, it happens everyday just in a more limited scope.

 

[Trying2overcome]

I’m also kind of worried about this. I remember when the news first broke… I was already having a crisis of faith when here comes pope francis changing Church teaching which I THOUGHT wasn’t supposed to change. But I guess there is a difference between teaching that cannot change, and teachings thay can legitimately change. You know, prudential judgments or whatnot. I’m still trying to figure out what this means. I also remember stumbling upon certain orthodox and protestant webpages when the news came out. They were so glad that francis disporved the theory of papal infallibility for them lol. Let’s just not jump to conclusions here and let’s see how this plays out

 

[Esodo]

I had the same struggles but as I have learned on here and elsewhere, this didn’t even come close to being an infallible statement. He did not speak ex cathedra.

 

[Esodo]

I think you misunderstand me friend and I am sorry if I offended you. I just meant that I have heard arguments from both sides and there is a lot more nuance on this than “it definitely changed” just like how another user showed above. Also not everything the Pope says is dogma. If he is not speaking ex cathedra then he can be in error. If Pope Francis said today that we need to bow down and worship another god etc. and that it is ok… he isn’t correct. Now if he made some definitive and solem infallible sounding proclamation… we might have an issue. Sorry if I came off the wrong way.

 

[Esodo]

This was a perfect answer. Thank you!

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

To recap the earlier posts, all agree that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil but must be abolished if the circumstances cause it to be evil.

The evaluation of what to do in differing “circumstances” is a prudential judgment, one which each of us is free to make for himself.

And prudence is a moral virtue that taps moral principles conforming to Gods laws written on the human heart and nourished by a good informed conscience. As Catholics, we defer to the authority and guidance of the Church to act prudently.

That something is not ‘intrinsically evil’ does not mean that it can never be evil. It can be extrinsically evil, that is, in some circumstances it can do more harm than good to society rendering it unworthy, cruel, unnecessary. To continue to do something that has that effect on the dignity of people is immoral.

The irony is that it is you that is acting as if it is intrinsically just. It isn’t and that has never been taught by the Church. The Church is coming out to push back against this uniquely US adapted Hobbesian ideology masquerading as its own Catholic teaching. If you don’t recognise that the Catholic Church is a legitimate moral authority and teacher then don’t pretend to argue from that position.

Do you believe that a thing can be extrinsically evil even though it is not intrinsically evil?

Such an easy thing to understand. Something that is not inherently evil but can be made evil by misuse. Slavery for instance. Not condemned by Scripture but now regarded as abominable in todays society. War for instance also.

Do you agree that some things can not be inherently evil but can be made abominably evil by its misuse?

 

[Emeraldlady]

If a sentence is not serving the common good it is an injustice.

That is not Catholic teaching and the Church has the authority and the duty to speak out against immoral policies and unjust laws, based on her God given moral authority.

Aquinas says “Laws framed by man are either just or unjust.”

“…laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above—either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory—or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him—or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 5), “a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all”.”

ST I II Q96

“If we speak of legal justice, it is evident that it stands foremost among all the moral virtues, for as much as the common good transcends the individual good of one person. On this sense the Philosopher declares (Ethic. v, 1) that “the most excellent of the virtues would seem to be justice, and more glorious than either the evening or the morning star”.”

ST II II Q58

Legitimate authority is not an amoral machine. The Church teaches it is a moral body of authority concerned for the common good of human society and therefore morally accountable.