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

[Dovekin]

So your answer to the OP is “yes”

No, it is not. It is that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in some people’s idea of what the Church is.

 

[godisgood77]

So your answer to the OP is “yes”

No it did not disprove the Church. The change reflects a maturation and deepening of the Church’s understanding. The Church teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible is clearly articulated in the Catechism and further elucidated by the CDF here - Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

This maturation and change does not change the essence of the Church’s teaching on the subject to-date, but instead reflects that Church can come to deeper understanding with time.

As Catholic, I support the Church’s determination to work for abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

 

[Sbee0]

To me capital punishment is completely incompatible with being pro life. Can’t support it for any reason.

 

[Neithan]

Doctrine can change; dogma does not. Not all doctrine is dogma. And even dogma has degrees of certainty, De fide as the most certain and infallibly defined.

 

[jag]

The change reflects a maturation and deepening

Reaching the opposite conclusion is never “maturation and deepening”. Henry Newman put it better than me.

This understanding of church teaching means that tomorrow the church can teach that two men or two women can validly and sacramentally marry and it will be fine and totally in line with teaching for 2000 years that such thing is not possible.

 

[jag]

Doctrine can change, but never contradict itself

 

[Ender]

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.

I can cite more if that would make any difference to you.

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.

The question is not so much “what the church teaches” as it is “what is the level of authority of this teaching?” If the teaching is prudential then it does not oblige assent.

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

No, I’m just disagreeing with you. Why would I disagree with the church if I accept what has been doctrine for 2000 years?

 

[Ender]

Is it ambiguous because of your understanding of “intrinsic evil”?

Does “inadmissible” mean that capital punishment is now considered intrinsically evil?

 

[Victoria33]

Does “inadmissible” mean that capital punishment is now considered intrinsically evil?

No.

There really has not been a profound change in the teaching from what I understand.

 

[Dovekin]

Reaching the opposite conclusion is never “maturation and deepening”. Henry Newman put it better than me.

Since you brought up the good Cardinal’s opinion, I thought we should look at it.

However, as the last instances suggest to us, this unity of type, characteristic as it is of faithful developments, must not be pressed to the extent of denying all variation, nay, considerable alteration of proportion and relation, as time goes on, in the parts or aspects of an idea. Great changes in outward appearance and internal harmony occur in the instance of the animal creation itself. The fledged bird differs much from its rudimental form in the egg. The butterfly is the development, but not in any sense the image, of the grub.
John Henry Newman Essay on the Development of Doctrine

 

[Ender]

Since you brought up the good Cardinal’s opinion, I thought we should look at it.

I’m not sure how you ended up responding to me for a comment jag made, nonetheless there is nothing in that paragraph you cited that contradicts the citation jag provided, which is not all that surprising inasmuch as we wouldn’t really expect Newman to contradict himself.

The issue is not whether doctrines can develop, everyone accepts that, the question is whether development includes complete repudiation. Returning to Newman:

As developments which are preceded by definite indications have a fair presumption in their favour, so those which do but contradict and reverse the course of doctrine which has been developed before them, and out of which they spring, are certainly corrupt; for a corruption is a development in that very stage in which it ceases to illustrate, and begins to disturb, the acquisitions gained in its previous history.

Cardinal Newman in Chapter 5 of Development of Christian Doctrine

Also, I’m still waiting for your response to my question as to whether Francis’ change to the catechism calling capital punishment “inadmissible” means it is now to be considered intrinsically evil. If the passage is not ambiguous then a simple yes or no ought to be, well, simple.

 

[Dovekin]

The issue is not whether doctrines can develop, everyone accepts that, the question is whether development includes complete repudiation.

Is that the question?

Earlier someone, genesis315 I think, posted a note explaining how the teachings on usury and slavery were never infallible. Perhaps someone will post an explanation of how previous teaching on the death penalty was never infallible. At very least, that seems more likely than the Church being disproven.

As to “intrinsic evil” I was referring to something Jag had said. I have used the term but I find that language problematic for other reasons. I do not know enough about intrinsic evil to give a yes or no answer.

 

[godisgood77]

Does “inadmissible” mean that capital punishment is now considered intrinsically evil?

It means that, for Catholics, the death penalty is not an option … pretty simple

 

[godisgood77]

No, I’m just disagreeing with you. Why would I disagree with the church if I accept what has been doctrine for 2000 years?

I’ll stick with Church teaching on this one. Sounds like you won’t … which, again, you’re free to do so

 

[godisgood77]

Doctrine can change, but never contradict itself

True …and in this case this deepening of teaching does not contradict the teaching as it stood before this legitimate development. I would point you to Cardinal Ladaria’s, CDF, letter to the bishops linked earlier where he clearly enumerates the teaching of successive pontiffs on the subject of the death penalty and the development of doctrine… not the development of a prudential judgement.

From the CDF - Letter to the Bishops regarding the new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

1. All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime.

I get that you don’t like this teaching, but that does not lessen the fact that the Church teaches that the death penalty is not an option as it violates human dignity

 

[Esodo]

He didn’t really post to show that they were never infallible,which I don’t know if they are or not so no disagreement there, but rather that Church teaching didn’t change on those concepts and to explain away common misunderstandings. A lot of people don’t realize that the only slavery condemned as an intristic evil by the Church is chattel slavery etc.

 

[Ender]

As to “intrinsic evil” I was referring to something Jag had said. I have used the term but I find that language problematic for other reasons. I do not know enough about intrinsic evil to give a yes or no answer.

An intrinsic evil is an act that can never be permitted regardless of the situation. Abortion is an example.

1756 There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.

Given that definition, do you believe that capital punishment is (now) intrinsically evil?

It means that, for Catholics, the death penalty is not an option … pretty simple

This is an assertion, not an argument. I could “rebut” your assertion with one of my own: “Yes it is” but that’s not useful. If you’d like to make an argument to support your claim I would be happy to respond.

True …and in this case this deepening of teaching does not contradict the teaching as it stood before this legitimate development.

Well then, if this teaching does not contradict previous teaching then the previous doctrines still stand: the state has a legitimate right to employ capital punishment for serious crimes.

 

[godisgood77]

the state has a legitimate right to employ capital punishment for serious crimes.

Not according to the Church. I’ll stick with Church teaching in this one… i’m sorry that you won’t.

This is an assertion, not an argument

Good news for me is that I don’t have to make an argument… I stand behind Church teaching

 

[Dovekin]

1756 There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery.

I have problems with this definition. It does not make sense to me. Does this mean most of the children of Jacob are the products of intrinsic evil? Isn’t murder distinguished from killing by circumsrances and intentios?

I suppose I could answer it this way. If murder is intrinsically evil independent of circumstances and intentions then capital punishment, independent of circumstances and intentions, cannot be distinguished from murder and is intrinsically evil.

I do not really think that makes much sense, but it as close to a reasoned response as I can come up with. More time might help me understand what “murder independent of circumstances and intentions” means, but right now I don’t really see how to apply what I see as an irrational definition.

this teaching does not contradict previous teaching then the previous doctrines still stand

The sense of this depends on what the previous teaching was. It may not be what you are saying it is. It may be. It just is not clear how to determine what is or was Church teaching, apart from explicit magisterial guidance.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

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)

You snipped the quote but Card. Dulles here was responding to Anton Scalia’s inability to comprehend the purpose and value in the Church’s moral guidance.

When Popes have decreed regarding the death penalty, whether to defend it’s use in that era or to defend abolition of it’s use in another era, it amounts to their prudential judgement. Dulles makes reference to the ‘concrete circumstances’ on which the Church of the day is giving guidance. Whether some agree or disagree about the concrete circumstances is personal. What the Church is bound to do is defend against absolutism. That the death penalty is ‘intrinsically evil’ or that it is ‘intrinsically’ just and can never be abolished. Both those positions defy Church teaching.

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

Did you not state that abolition of the death penalty would cause a deficient form of justice?

State your position clearly. Are there concrete circumstances which would warrant that abolition of the death penalty for justice to be served?

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

Clear it up for us then. Does justice permit abolition of the death penalty?