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

[Ender]

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.

We are not obligated to assent to prudential judgments even of the church, something the church herself teaches. I have cited this several times before; I’m surprised you don’t seem to remember it.

“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)

The irony is that it is you that is acting as if it is intrinsically just.

Given that I have repeatedly said there is no such thing as an intrinsically just action it’s disappointing to see you dredge this up again.

Extrinsic evil: Something that is not inherently evil but can be made evil by misuse.

This would apply to almost anything since almost anything can be misused, so no, I don’t think the term is particularly meaningful.

 

[Ender]

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.

True, this is why it is appropriate for her to speak out against laws permitting abortion and euthanasia since those laws are in fact immoral. Laws permitting capital punishment, however, are neither immoral nor unjust and opposition to them is prudential.

 

[godisgood77]

To the OP’s original post, the Church, in her wisdom, now teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible.

 

[Ender]

To the OP’s original post, the Church, in her wisdom, now teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible.

This entire debate has been over what “inadmissible” means. Pretty much everyone understands that it does not mean capital punishment is now intrinsically evil. That being so, the decision of whether to use it or not is a prudential judgment, one that in fact belongs to those who have responsibility for the common good - viz. the state.

Francis’ change to the catechism seems definitive, but in fact is not really a change from what JPII taught, which in turn did not change what the church has always taught: the state has a legitimate right to use capital punishment. The church has expressed the opinion that it’s harmful to do so.

 

[Dovekin]

this uniquely US adapted Hobbesian ideology masquerading as its own Catholic teaching.

Kudos for recognizing Hobbes!!

 

[godisgood77]

That being so, the decision of whether to use it or not is a prudential judgment, one that in fact belongs to those who have responsibility for the common good - viz. the state.

Yes the stare can do as it pleases, but for us Catholics it is now inadmissible - not an option

 

[graciew]

We are not obligated to assent to prudential judgments even of the church, something the church herself teaches. I have cited this several times before; I’m surprised you don’t seem to remember it.

The Cathecism isn t a compilation of prudential judgements and opinions.
And it is a disservice to the Church and to the people not to present it as from what St John Paul II and give thanks to them Cardinal Ratzinger who was in charge of the Comission.
For all who want to learn what it is,about it and how it was presented, and drafted and much more, please read the following:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/aposcons.htm

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2NWCAT.HTM

And if the CCC has always been a compilation of opinions , well then, you are mistaken , Ender. It happens.
But spreading that we shouldn t adhere nor to the Apostolic Authority is at best distracting for those persons earnestly interested in learning directly from the sources.

 

[Gab123]

Did the Catechism change definitely change Church teaching or disprove the Church?

The Church was founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of souls. The death penalty has to do with the rights of the state and punishment for crimes committed in society.

 

[Ender]

Yes the stare can do as it pleases, but for us Catholics it is now inadmissible - not an option

It is an option. It is a legitimate option for states. If capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, which no one has so far claimed, then that must mean there are situations where its use is proper, and while we may disagree with one another - and even with the pope - there is no moral fault in believing it is still acceptable.

 

[Ender]

The Catechism isn’t a compilation of prudential judgements and opinions.

Nor have I suggested otherwise. To claim that one section contains a judgment hardly suggests that every other section does as well.

Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the Catechism; on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. (Karl Keating)

And it is a disservice to the Church and to the people not to present it as from what St John Paul II and give thanks to them Cardinal Ratzinger who was in charge of the Comission.

Let’s look at what Cardinal Ratzinger said.

While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment (2004)

“You ask about the correct interpretation of the teaching of the encyclical on the death penalty. Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism…" (1995)

How is it a disservice to argue that what Cardinal Ratzinger said is true?

 

[godisgood77]

It is an option. It is a legitimate option for states. If capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, which no one has so far claimed, then that must mean there are situations where its use is proper, and while we may disagree with one another - and even with the pope - there is no moral fault in believing it is still acceptable.

The Church teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible, so for us Catholics, the death penalty is not an option - if we chose to follow Church teaching that is. Sounds like you do not want to follow Church teaching on this and you are 100% entitled to dissent. I’d advise against dissenting, but that is your prerogative.

 

[Dourbest]

I’d argue, in a way, it is. Debatably the worst sin is murder. The death penalty, unless in extremely odd circumstances, is direct murder.

 

[graciew]

Please read my post and the links.
And what I was addressing: the Cathecism.

 

[Ender]

The Church teaches that the death penalty is inadmissible, so for us Catholics, the death penalty is not an option - if we chose to follow Church teaching that is.

The “inadmissibility” of capital punishment is not a doctrine, it is a prudential judgment, and disagreeing with it is not to disagree with church teaching.

Sounds like you do not want to follow Church teaching on this and you are 100% entitled to dissent. I’d advise against dissenting, but that is your prerogative.

As a Catholic I am not entitled to dissent from church doctrines. I have an obligation to assent to them. For prudential judgments, however, not so much.

As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm…that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles, 2001)

 

[jag]

This thread is a clear example of how the deliberate ambiguous language of Pope Francis goes against the unity of the church

 

[godisgood77]

I love your zeal ender… but let’s let the Catechism of the Church speak for itself… it is a more weighty and much more authoritative than the quote of one cardinal.

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.

I understand that you disagree with the Church and your entitled to because you have free will.

 

[godisgood77]

This thread is a clear example of how the deliberate ambiguous language of Pope Francis goes against the unity of the church

Jag… how is the language ambiguous?

It seems that calling the pope’s teaching ambiguous is code for ‘I don’t agree with the Pope and the Church’. The Catechism is crystal clear on this topic… some just really disagree with the Church on this

 

[Dovekin]

Ambiguous?

the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person

Where do you see ambiguity in that? Is it because people disagree about whether it is a just prudential judgment?

How would you phrase it unambiguously?

 

[jag]

It is ambiguous because it may be understood as intrinsically evil (inadmissible, in the light of the Gospel, contrary to human dignity) but not saying so because saying so would imply that the church had been teaching grave moral error during 2000 years

 

[jag]

So your answer to the OP is “yes”