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

[Emeraldlady]

The Church did not change its teaching. Death Penalty is still admissible, usury is still intrinsically evil, slavery is still acceptable.
Catechism is not infallible.

What the Church teaches is that the concrete circumstances in our day render the death penalty a disservice to the common good and therefore morally inadmissible.

 

[Dovekin]

What the Church teaches is determined by the Holy Spirit and NEVER changes.

Yes, that is completely true as well.

The Pope teaches that the death penalty is inadmissable, just as the Holy Spirit has always taught.

 

[RobynP]

Has anyone considered that maybe the change in the Church’s teaching on the death penalty is more like the development of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage?

Divorce and remarriage is and always was intrinsically evil. But because of our hardness of hearts God allowed it. Maybe it’s the same thing with the death penalty.

When Jesus introduced the idea that, even though God through Moses taught divorce and remarriage was permissible, it actually is not something we should be doing, people could have - and did - complained that this was a “contradiction” of everything that had been practiced and taught for the entire history of their religion.

But that didn’t make what Jesus said any less true. And once this truth about the indissolubility of marriage was understood, we couldn’t go back to the way things were before.

That’s why this move by the Pope has only strengthened my belief that the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church. Because it’s following the exact pattern of God’s guidance that we see in the Bible. Where moral development followed an upward path, traveling from a more barbaric code of eye for an eye to a more challenging and demanding lifestyle that goes against all our base, sinful instincts.

God’s people gradually had to be shown that actions that were previously allowed are actually not good for us. That fits perfectly with what is happening with the death penalty today.

The Church’s understanding of the inherent dignity of the individual has undergone a massive development in the wake of the carnage of the last two centuries, when totalitarian regimes put millions to death through the death penalty, claiming that they were justified in doing it for the “good of the state.”

That’s why in Vatican II the Church taught a truly radical idea that the human person is the only creature who was created for his or her own sake. Not for the sake of a government or business or any ideology. Not even for the sake of the Church.

We’re finally starting to understand the full implication of that teaching, which itself is rooted in the Gospel. And that’s why the Church has been steadily moving away from supporting the DP for the last several decades.

And now that our understanding of the inherent dignity and worth of the person has deepened, we can’t go backwards. Just like after Jesus taught about the indissolubility of marriage we couldn’t go back.

I think arguing about whether the teaching is infallible or a contradiction is causing us to miss God’s work in helping the Church “grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ.”

The Holy Spirit is clearly working through the Church to call us to conform more perfectly to the Gospel and to respect the infinite worth of every single person. How can we possibly ignore that?

 

[Ender]

It’s been happening for 2000 years, and, generally, the latest version is the most relevant, by virtue of hindsight. You seem to be saying that the Church is incapable of growth.

I have repeatedly stated that doctrines can develop. I have also cited significant church teachers who have said that development does not include repudiation, which is what the interpretation of the “development” in the case of capital punishment would be.

If you accept that “inadmissible” now means that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, then the church will have directly contradicted doctrines she has taught unchanged since the beginning and which have been held by virtually every Father and Doctor of the church, and by all previous popes. She will be teaching now what she held to be heresy before. But it gets worse. You also have to accept that morality is nothing more than the opinion of the current pope and is not in fact built upon revealed truth, as well as that what the church taught before last year about the limits of the true development of doctrine is also false. This position calls into question virtually every other controversial teaching of the church, including those on homosexuality, contraception, euthanasia, and even abortion.

If, however, as I have insisted, this is nothing more than another prudential judgment that capital punishment ought not be used because of existing conditions, then none of that is true. I don’t think you realize the real difficulties of interpreting the change to 2267 as doctrinal.

 

[Dovekin]

A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.’

I thought I replied to this already, but probably it got lost the tangles of the web. If it shows up somehow, do as you please.

I still do not understand how murder can be an intrinsic evil. How is “done by someone authorized” not a circumstance? How is murder an intrinsic evil? I just do not understand intrinsic evil well enough to give an answer to your question.

Robyn has given a good answer addressing whether adultery is an intrinsic evil. If something God allowed is an intrinsic evil, the concept is difficult at best.

With the death penalty, it may be that Pope Francis has decided that no one has the authority to take a life. This would mean capital ppunishment is murder by your definition of murder. This does not change earlier teaching unless we apply it retroactively.

The Pope does not determine what is true or false, moral or immoral; he determines what the Church teaches.

 

[godisgood77]

I have repeatedly stated that doctrines can develop. I have also cited significant church teachers who have said that development does not include repudiation, which is what the interpretation of the “development” in the case of capital punishment would be.

The prefect of the Congregation for th Doctrine of the Faith - Cardinal Ladaria offers an authoritative defense and explanation of the development of this doctrine here…this teaching carries significant weight and is more authoritative than you are putting forward…

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html

If particular note is the first paragraph…
1. The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum , by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church , asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times.[1] This development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”[2]

Clearly we are talking about DOCTRINE… not something less. We can assent to the Church’s teaching on this doctrine or reject it.

 

[godisgood77]

And there we go. Another post removed. Nothing inappropriate in the post.
What a bad joke.

No idea what is going on here…

 

[o_mlly]

If you accept that “inadmissible” now means that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, then the church will have directly contradicted doctrines she has taught

I believe the Church teaches that capital punishment in the circumstance that other means are available to protect society is intrinsically evil.

Similarly, capital punishment in the circumstance that the guilty party’s identity has not been fully determined is intrinsically evil.

Also, capital punishment in the circumstance that the guilty party’s responsibility has not been fully determined is intrinsically evil.

In all three cases, the determination of the circumstance is a prudential judgement.

 

[Ender]

I believe the Church teaches that capital punishment in the circumstance that other means are available to protect society is intrinsically evil.

There are three problems here: first, Francis’ change implies that even the protection of society doesn’t justify capital punishment. JPII clearly allowed that exception, but Francis does not. His phrase was “inadmissible”, not “inadmissible except…” His change implies that JPII got it wrong.

Second, the protection of society is not the primary objective of punishment; it is a secondary goal. The better restriction would be based on whether other means were available to achieve the primary objective.

Third, an intrinsic evil cannot be based on a judgment. If I think capital punishment is necessary, and yu think it is not, this cannot mean that I have sinned. If I believe it is unnecessary and support it anyway that might be a problem, but if I do what I think is necessary then I cannot have sinned, regardless of the opinions of others.

Clearly we are talking about DOCTRINE… not something less. We can assent to the Church’s teaching on this doctrine or reject it.

The explain the doctrine: is it that capital punishment is now intrinsically evil?

 

[godisgood77]

His change implies that JPII got it wrong.

This change does not imply that JPII got it wrong. The teaching explicitly states in the letter from the CDF this is a development of doctrine based on achieving a deeper understanding of the dignity of the human person. This has happened many, many times over the centuries…JPII did not get it wrong, just incomplete.

Here is the CDF on this development:
This development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the Church for the respect due to every human life. Along this line, John Paul II affirmed: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”

The explain the doctrine: is it that capital punishment is now intrinsically evil?

Here is the CDF’s letter (posted earlier) which contains all that you will need - a very easy read:

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

 

[o_mlly]

There are three problems here: first, Francis’ change implies that even the protection of society doesn’t justify capital punishment. …

I disagree. Note the word "consequently" begins the sentence in which the death penalty becomes inadmissible.

As I read the revised text, one of the three predicates that renders the death penalty consequently inadmissible is the existence of effective systems of detention [that] … ensure the due protection of citizens. The other two predicates are attitudinal: an increasing awareness … and a new understanding…

Second, the protection of society is not the primary objective of punishment; it is a secondary goal.

What the Church teaches is the duty of the Magisterium. Why the Church teaches what is taught is the province of philosophers, who sometimes are popes, but when so act only as philosophers.

Third, an intrinsic evil cannot be based on a judgment. … if I do what I think is necessary then I cannot have sinned …

Again, I disagree. The truth cannot be based on judgement. The purpose of our Magisterium is to tell us what the truth is. The necessity of capital punishment has always been delimited by Church teaching and not left as a merely a matter of personal judgement.

The development of doctrine over the years has restricted rather than loosened behaviors. Future Magisteriums may add other delimiters that define moral and immoral behaviors. As it relates to this issue for instance, what constitutes legitimacy in governments that practice capital punishments? Was Louis XVI’s execution a just execution?

The Magisterium teaches that capital punishment in the circumstances cited is intrinsically evil. Whether the act is also sinful is a different matter.

 

[Ender]

Here is the CDF’s letter (posted earlier) which contains all that you will need - a very easy read:

That you so resolutely refuse to answer this yes or no question suggests either that you don’t know the answer, which goes to an earlier comment about this being an ambiguous statement, or that you recognize the problems involved in taking either position.

I disagree. Note the word " consequently" begins the sentence in which the death penalty becomes inadmissible

I’m confused: is capital punishment admissible if necessary to protect society? If it is then how can it deemed inadmissible? If one of the “consequent” predicates is a new understanding of man’s dignity then does that alone not rule out capital punishment regardless of the need for protection?

What the Church teaches is the duty of the Magisterium.

The church teaches that protection is not the primary objective of punishment. My objection here was not addressed. It is the primary objective that must always be met, not a secondary one.

The Magisterium teaches that capital punishment in the circumstances cited is intrinsically evil. Whether the act is also sinful is a different matter.

I appreciate that you have taken a position on this question, but I think you sidestep the implication. I also don’t think this accords with what Archbishop Gomez said the day after Francis rewrote that part of the catechism.

The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral

An intrinsic evil is so without exception; it does not become so depending on circumstances. That would be a contradiction of the meaning of the term.

 

[godisgood77]

That you so resolutely refuse to answer this yes or no question suggests either that you don’t know the answer, which goes to an earlier comment about this being an ambiguous statement, or that you recognize the problems involved in taking either position.

An argument from silence, eh?

I’m sorry to rely too heavily on plain spoken Church teaching …

Well I have an opinion. My opinion doesn’t matter when compared to Church teaching, but I’ll share it anyway. Yes, I believe that incarcerating someone, judging them guilty of a crime and then executing that person through a pre-meditated procedure is always wrong. Full stop. I suggest leaving that person incarcerated and offering the chance at repentance

Does my opinion (or yours for that matter) change the Church’s doctrinal teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible? Not at all…

I get that you don’t like it… there are teachings that I don’t like too. I still assent to them though…

Now that I’ve answered your question, would you now comment on the CDF’s letter explaining the change to Church teaching on the death penalty? More pointedly, do you accept the Church doctrine that death penalty is inadmissible? Yes or no will do

 

[Emeraldlady]

The church teaches that protection is not the primary objective of punishment. My objection here was not addressed. It is the primary objective that must always be met, not a secondary one.

Non sequitur. Everyone agrees that “crime deserves punishment”. The sentences and penalties though are determined by the jurisdictions authorised to serve the common good of the community.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m confused: is capital punishment admissible if necessary to protect society?

Yes, I believe that remains the teaching as a reasonable interpretation of the text.

If it is then how can it deemed inadmissible?

CP is inadmissible if other means exist to protect society.

If one of the “consequent” predicates is a new understanding of man’s dignity then does that alone not rule out capital punishment regardless of the need for protection?

I think the “new understanding” alone does not render CP intrinsically evil. The “other means exist” predicate is the circumstance that proscribes CP. The new understanding of man’s dignity does not in itself protect society but raises the level of cautiousness required by the state before killing a person.

The church teaches that protection is not the primary objective of punishment. My objection here was not addressed. It is the primary objective that must always be met, not a secondary one.

Here we agree to disagree on what constitutes Magisterial teaching. I believe any rationale offered for what is taught is only provided to facilitate the faithful’s assent.

An intrinsic evil is so without exception; it does not become so depending on circumstances …

Yes, we agree. The description of a human act that is intrinsically evil requires that within that description alone nothing more is necessary to judge it so. The vocabulary does not control or limit the judgement of acts as intrinsically evil. Sometimes we have a single word that implies the necessary circumstances, sometimes not. The description may be a single word, e.g. murder, or a phrase, e.g., demon worship, or a sentence, e.g. capital punishment if other means exist to protect society is intrinsically evil.

Whether the circumstances are implicit or explicit is not important; what is important is whether the act as described can be judged evil with certainty. For instance, the human act of sexual intercourse cannot on that description alone be judged evil. If the sexual intercourse occurs between a married person and another who is not their spouse then the act is intrinsically evil. We have a single word – adultery – which makes implicit the circumstances necessary to judge that special circumstance of sexual intercourse intrinsically evil.

 

[Ender]

Does my opinion (or yours for that matter) change the Church’s doctrinal teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible? Not at all…

I wasn’t asking for your opinion on capital punishment, I was asking what you thought the church’s teaching is on whether capital punishment is or is not intrinsically evil.

I get that you don’t like it… there are teachings that I don’t like too. I still assent to them though…

Until we understand what the teaching is there is no way to say we have assented to it. Nor is it a question of whether I “like” it, I’m trying to find out what “it” is.

Now that I’ve answered your question, would you now comment on the CDF’s letter explaining the change to Church teaching on the death penalty? More pointedly, do you accept the Church doctrine that death penalty is inadmissible? Yes or no will do

If inadmissible is a doctrinal statement meaning that capital punishment is intrinsically evil then I could not accept it. Since I don’t believe that is in fact what it means, I don’t have a problem with it. Inadmissible is to me an ambiguous word in that it suggests it means intrinsically evil, but it doesn’t - and I think it cannot - specifically say it.

Regarding the acceptance of this as a new doctrine, I think a comment Cardinal Ratzinger made back in 1972 is relevant:

“On the contrary, criticism of papal pronouncements will be possible and even necessary, to the extent that they lack support in Scripture and the Creed, that is, in the faith of the whole Church,”

This is why I believe no one, even a pope, could assert that capital punishment is an intrinsic evil. It has too often been proclaimed to be permitted by Scripture. It’s too big a step.

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)

 

[Ender]

Ender: I’m confused: is capital punishment admissible if necessary to protect society?

That would mean it is not really “inadmissible” inasmuch as there would be times when it was in fact admissible. I think this conflicts with what @godisgood77 believes. I would like to see you two address this point.

I think the “new understanding” alone does not render CP intrinsically evil.

I agree with you on this.

Here we agree to disagree on what constitutes Magisterial teaching.

Here is the teaching from the catechism regarding the primary objective of punishment:

2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

Protecting society from a new offense does nothing to redress the disorder caused by one already committed, so whatever you think that phrase means it cannot mean that protection is the primary objective.

 

[o_mlly]

Here is the teaching from the catechism regarding the primary objective of punishment:

2266 The primary scope of the penalty is to redress the disorder caused by the offense.

Protecting society from a new offense does nothing to redress the disorder caused by one already committed, so whatever you think that phrase means it cannot mean that protection is the primary objective.

I think the issue is not, “What is the primary objective of punishment?” But rather, “Is death as a punishment ever legitimate?” The teaching says, “No.”

Is capital punishment simply a punishment different in degree than say, incarceration or is capital punishment different in kind to all other forms of punishment? The latter interpretation is necessary, I think, to understand the teaching.

 

[Brendan]

What I know is that He didn’t hurt persons not went physically against persons.

Remember, this is the same Christ that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and sent an angel to kill the firstborn of the Egyptians.

So yes, He most certainly DID go after persons.

 

[Emeraldlady]

This is why I believe no one, even a pope, could assert that capital punishment is an intrinsic evil. It has too often been proclaimed to be permitted by Scripture. It’s too big a step.

Non sequitur. No Pope has claimed it is ‘intrinsically evil’ nor condemned it’s use in past era’s of civil justice. It is now inadmissible since society is such that it is sensed as hypocrisy to kill someone for killing someone. The Church is speaking strongly against the false ideology that the death penalty can never be abolished even to serve the common good. That is a modern day anathema and I would go as far to predict that the next Pope will have to state that for the sake of doctrinal truth.