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

[Brendan]

That has been reconsidered in the light of the totalitarian governments of the last century. State sponsored genocide raised the question in an urgent manner. Francis is providing an answer to those questions.

The question then, would be more geared towards the legitimacy of totalitarian governments, not towards revoking a right that had been given by God.

Both +JPII and +Benedict lived under such totalitarian governments, but recognized that the right of execution existed, did they not?

Or St Paul himself, when he wrote Romans 13. He was living under the Roman Empire, but recognized that even that government acted as an agent of God when it punished evildoers.

 

[Ender]

And so, this proposition is now shown to be inadequate. This does not prove that “nothing means anything” but that the Church has made mistakes. Does that disprove the Church as the OP askd? I do not see why one would choose “It disproves the Church” over “The Church makes mistakes” to resolve the conflict you present.

It is not my position that the church erred in the past. It is your interpretation of Francis’ change that requires us to accept that virtually all the Fathers, and Doctors, all the councils, and all previous popes and Magisteria were not just wrong but taught evil as good.

Let me add what the EmeraldLady quoted from one of the Church’s great Doctors:

it is unlawful to kill any man, since in every man though he be sinful, we ought to love the nature which God has made, and which is destroyed by slaying him.

You have misunderstood this quote. It was preceded with “If we consider a man in himself…” which in fact we do not do, which Aquinas makes clear by concluding with “Nevertheless… the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good”.

This citation supports my position that executing a criminal is in fact legitimate when it is perceived to benefit the common good.

Francis does not believe the state has the right to execute.

This interpretation has Francis personally overthrowing not just all his predecessors, but the teaching of Scripture. Unsurprisingly that’s not a step I’m willing to take.

 

[Ender]

Or St Paul himself, when he wrote Romans 13. He was living under the Roman Empire, but recognized that even that government acted as an agent of God when it punished evildoers.

“He Who gave dominion to Marius, gave it also to Caesar, He Who gave it to Augustus, gave it also to Nero, He Who gave it to Vespasian, father or son, most benign emperors, gave it also to the most cruel Domitian; and that it may not be necessary to recount every instance, He Who gave it to Constantine the Christian gave it also to Julian the Apostate.” (St. Bellarmine quoting St. Augustine)

 

[Emeraldlady]

Dovekin:

A critical element in murder is whether a person is authorized to kill another person. If the state is authorized to kill people, the death penalty is not murder. If the state is not authorized, it is murder. It is not that God has changed, but the role of the state has changed. The superficial similarity of capital punishment 1000 years ago with the death penalty today does not mean they are identical acts.

Correct. Now the question becomes , where does the State get it’s authorization. Is it from the Church, or directly from God?

The State has such authorization in the past, when and how did it get revoked?

The State is authorised to serve the common good. Not to arbitrarily apply the death penalty. If the death penalty no longer serves the common good, it is forbidden per Aquinas.

 

[Dovekin]

You have misunderstood this quote. It was preceded with “ If we consider a man in himself …” which in fact we do not do, which Aquinas makes clear by concluding with “ Nevertheless… the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good ”.

This citation supports my position that executing a criminal is in fact legitimate when it is perceived to benefit the common good.

And it supports my position that this was never taught “unequivocally.” It was taught as an exception to a general principle, and it was taught with the principle that Francis is highlighting now.

This interpretation has Francis personally overthrowing not just all his predecessors, but the teaching of Scripture. Unsurprisingly that’s not a step I’m willing to take.

Again with the hyperbole. Francis is affirming the testimony of his predecessors that the gift of life is a precious good.

The question then, would be more geared towards the legitimacy of totalitarian governments, not towards revoking a right that had been given by God.

Why? Governments, good and bad, get all their authority from God. That does not mean everything they do is authorized by God. Francis lived through Argentina’s Dirty War. It is fitting that he should teach what the Madres de Plaza de Mayo taught. The state should not kill its citizens

 

[o_mlly]

The individual may kill in self-defense only if he doesn’t directly intend the death.

According to the Catechism, so does the state – protect innocent society.

As far as the church is concerned the principle has no merit since it is contrary to what she teaches.

No. It accords with the teaching.

Not exactly. First, the church is more than the judgment of one pope, and second, no one can interpret Scripture contrary to the interpretation given by the Fathers.

All the Fathers did not have the gift of infallibility. The popes do.

 

[Brendan]

The State is authorised to serve the common good.

The application of a just penalty serves the common good.

The Catechism of Trent noted so in it’s statement on the 5th Commandment

The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

The State is authorised to serve the common good.

The application of a just penalty serves the common good.

The Catechism of Trent noted so in it’s statement on the 5th Commandment

The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence

Since the end of human law and legal justice is the common good the authorities are morally bound to apply laws according to how they serve the common good.

Augustine says (De Lib. Arb. i, 6): “A temporal law, however just, may be justly changed in course of time.” …human law is a dictate of reason, whereby human acts are directed. Thus there may be two causes for the just change of human law: one on the part of reason; the other on the part of man whose acts are regulated by law. The cause on the part of reason is that it seems natural to human reason to advance gradually from the imperfect to the perfect. Hence, in speculative sciences, we see that the teaching of the early philosophers was imperfect, and that it was afterwards perfected by those who succeeded them. So also in practical matters: for those who first endeavored to discover something useful for the human community, not being able by themselves to take everything into consideration, set up certain institutions which were deficient in many ways; and these were changed by subsequent lawgivers who made institutions that might prove less frequently deficient in respect of the common weal.

On the part of man, whose acts are regulated by law, the law can be rightly changed on account of the changed condition of man, to whom different things are expedient according to the difference of his condition. ST I II q97 art1

 

[Ender]

Ender: The individual may kill in self-defense only if he doesn’t directly intend the death.

The catechism forbids a person acting in self-defense from intending to kill his aggressor. If capital punishment is merely another form of self-defense then that prohibition should apply to the state as well, but in fact the whole object of an execution is the death of the criminal. That the act is intended as protection doesn’t matter: the death is intended, and this is forbidden in self-defense.

2263 … “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

Ender: As far as the church is concerned the principle has no merit since it is contrary to what she teaches.

No. It accords with the teaching.

So you assert, but can you cite anything to support your claim?

All the Fathers did not have the gift of infallibility. The popes do.

Popes have that gift solely when they claim it; it is not attached to their every word. When you say the Fathers did not have that gift, does this mean you reject the teaching of the First Vatican Council?

 

[o_mlly]

The catechism forbids a person acting in self-defense from intending to kill his aggressor. If capital punishment is merely another form of self-defense then that prohibition should apply to the state as well, but in fact the whole object of an execution is the death of the criminal. That the act is intended as protection doesn’t matter: the death is intended, and this is forbidden in self-defense.

2263 … “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is no t.”

The teaching specifically prohibits the state from executing unless that is the the only means to protect innocent life, i.e., society. If execution is the only means to that end (self-defense) then that end (self-defense) must be the end in view, or the intended end.

So you assert, but can you cite anything to support your claim?

I wrote that the principle stands on its own merits – society cannot impose as punishment to a non-conforming person that which it has not given.

Organized society gives the citizen as a benefit an increase in freedom of action (circumstantial freedom). Therefore, as punishment for non-conformance that freedom of action which society gives may be revoked through exile or incarceration.

The teaching is in accord with this principle. As a punishment, the max the state may impose is to remove the benefit for the life of the non-conformist. Execution is limited to defending society if other means are not available.

Popes have that gift solely when they claim it; it is not attached to their every word. When you say the Fathers did not have that gift, does this mean you reject the teaching of the First Vatican Council?

How does believing that the gift of infallibility is not evidenced in all the Fathers require one to reject the teaching of Vatican I?

 

[Dovekin]

The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence

Does executing someone “naturally tend to this end”? Does it repress violence or express it?

What of our modern catechism? Does the inadmissability of capital punishment “naturally tend toward the preservation and security of human life”? Does it repress violence or express it?

This btw is another example of how conflicted the teaching on capital punishment has been. It allows for a death penalty only after it says something about the value of human life.

 

[Emeraldlady]

o_mlly:

Ender: The individual may kill in self-defense only if he doesn’t directly intend the death.

The catechism forbids a person acting in self-defense from intending to kill his aggressor. If capital punishment is merely another form of self-defense then that prohibition should apply to the state as well, but in fact the whole object of an execution is the death of the criminal. That the act is intended as protection doesn’t matter: the death is intended, and this is forbidden in self-defense.

2263 … “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

The Catechism #2263 is directly quoting Aquinas ST II II q64 art7. That clearly explains that both are self defense, individual and state. Just one is permitted to intend the kill to that end, the other isn’t.

“it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good”

The Church as always taught that the death penalty is a form of self defense.

 

[Ender]

The teaching specifically prohibits the state from executing unless that is the the only means to protect innocent life, i.e., society. If execution is the only means to that end (self-defense) then that end (self-defense) must be the end in view, or the intended end.

This is wrong on two counts, the most significant being that the church has never taught this. I’ve pointed this out before, but protection is not the primary objective of punishment and cannot determine its severity. Secondly, this still does not resolve the problem: in self-defense one must not intend the death of the victim. That prohibition does not change simply because someone has decided that a criminal should die so that society is protected. Self-defense does not justify executing someone.

Self-defense does not justify capital punishment; church teaching has always held these to be two separate exceptions that justify taking a life.

I wrote that the principle stands on its own merits – society cannot impose as punishment to a non-conforming person that which it has not given.

On one hand you say it stands on its own merits and on the other that this accords with church teaching, but in fact the church teaches something quite different. Then right after proclaiming the principle you claim it can be abrogated if society decides its defense justifies it. It seems this principle is valid only when government chooses to allow it.

How does believing that the gift of infallibility is not evidenced in all the Fathers require one to reject the teaching of Vatican I?

The infallibility of popes is irrelevant in this discussion. Vatican I, however, proclaimed that no one may interpret Scripture in a way contrary to the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers. Again, since the church has always taught that capital punishment is based on Scripture, I don’t see any way to suddenly alter that interpretation now.

 

[Emeraldlady]

o_mlly:

The teaching specifically prohibits the state from executing unless that is the the only means to protect innocent life, i.e., society. If execution is the only means to that end (self-defense) then that end (self-defense) must be the end in view, or the intended end.

This is wrong on two counts, the most significant being that the church has never taught this. I’ve pointed this out before, but protection is not the primary objective of punishment and cannot determine its severity. Secondly, this still does not resolve the problem: in self-defense one must not intend the death of the victim.

Aquinas, Thirteenth century Father of the Church -

“Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense in order to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s. But as it is unlawful to take a man’s life, except for the public authority acting for the common good, as stated above (Article 3), it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense, refer this to the public good”

What Ender has written is just false.

"except for such as have public authority, who while intending to kill a man in self-defense"

That is what the Church teaches.

That prohibition does not change simply because someone has decided that a criminal should die so that society is protected. Self-defense does not justify executing someone.

Aquinas again -

“A temporal law, however just, may be justly changed in course of time.”

As stated above (I-II:91:3), human law is a dictate of reason, whereby human acts are directed. Thus there may be two causes for the just change of human law: one on the part of reason; the other on the part of man whose acts are regulated by law. The cause on the part of reason is that it seems natural to human reason to advance gradually from the imperfect to the perfect. Hence, in speculative sciences, we see that the teaching of the early philosophers was imperfect, and that it was afterwards perfected by those who succeeded them. So also in practical matters: for those who first endeavored to discover something useful for the human community, not being able by themselves to take everything into consideration, set up certain institutions which were deficient in many ways; and these were changed by subsequent lawgivers who made institutions that might prove less frequently deficient in respect of the common weal.

On the part of man, whose acts are regulated by law, the law can be rightly changed on account of the changed condition of man, to whom different things are expedient according to the difference of his condition.

The Church per Aquinas has always taught that the death penalty is an act of self defense of the public good. The Church has also always taught that the State is primarily responsible for the common good and authorised to legislate to that end.

 

[o_mlly]

church teaching has always held …

I don’t see any way to suddenly alter that interpretation now.

These two sentences seem to be the core of your argument. You would either deny the Church an ability to develop teaching or elevate past pronouncements on capital punishment to the highest level in our hierarchy of truths.

In the message of salvation there is a certain hierarchy of truths, which the Church has always recognized when it composed creeds or summaries of the truths of faith. This hierarchy does not mean that some truths pertain to faith itself less than others, but rather that some truths are based on others as of a higher priority, and are illumined by them.
The Sacred Congregation for the Clergy’s General Catechetical Directory

It seems you would put a moral issue i.e., capital punishment, over and controlling the truths of faith in our hierarchy. But prior capital punishment pronouncements do not illumine the Church’s understanding of the dignity of man. Rather the dignity of man as a truth of faith controls as the rescript clearly shows: “the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.”

 

[Ender]

These two sentences seem to be the core of your argument. You would either deny the Church an ability to develop teaching or elevate past pronouncements on capital punishment to the highest level in our hierarchy of truths.

That I don’t believe the doctrines on capital punishment can be reversed and repudiated doesn’t mean that I reject the development of doctrine in general. It only means I do not believe this one can be overthrown so that what was heretical in the past has become doctrinal now.

It is simply not true that because some things have changed everything is therefore subject to change, but that is what this argument implies, and if the teaching on capital punishment could be reversed based on the opinion of one pope then why could not all of her non-infallible teachings be reversed as well? What would be the argument against it?

I don’t think you fully appreciate the extent of the repudiation involved in the reversal of this doctrine.

• Truth become whatever the pope claims it to be. It becomes untethered from Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and even the meaning of truth itself.
• The “infallibility” of popes is extended way beyond anything ever envisioned by the term.
• Sacred Tradition is abandoned as a meaningful concept. What was believed in the past becomes irrelevant.

Yes, these seem over the top and apocalyptic, but all of these would be effectively true. I would ask: how do you know what is true? If your only answer is “Because the pope says so” then you have demonstrated that my concerns are accurate.

It seems you would put a moral issue i.e., capital punishment, over and controlling the truths of faith in our hierarchy.

All of the truths of the church are integrated together. It is not that capital punishment controls the truths of our faith, but that its legitimacy flows from those truths. To say now that capital punishment is evil means those “truths” are not what we thought they were…or maybe they’re not even truths at all.

How are we to know what is true?

 

[Ender]

The Catechism of Trent noted so in it’s statement on the 5th Commandment

The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence

Trent was unambiguous in its acceptance of capital punishment, but I don’t think this citation is the best one for showing it. In fact I think it might further the misunderstanding about punishment. What I suspect most people will miss in this citation is that it starts with “The end of the Commandment…”, not with “The end of punishment.…”

The objective of the commandment not to murder is “the preservation and security of human life”, but that is not the first objective of punishment. Indirectly it could be considered the objective of all virtues, but justice, which is the end of punishment, is different than security.

Until a better appreciation of the meaning of punishment becomes common, the misunderstanding that punishment is primarily intended for defense will continue.

For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong. (Pius XII)

 

[o_mlly]

That I don’t believe the doctrines on capital punishment can be reversed and repudiated doesn’t mean that I reject the development of doctrine in general. It only means I do not believe this one can be overthrown so that what was heretical in the past has become doctrinal now.

Who in the past 2,000 years did the Church name as heretic for opposing capital punishment?

It is simply not true that because some things have changed everything is therefore subject to change,

And no one has claimed that to be true. The hierarchy lists those articles of faith which will not change. That hierarchy does not include past pronouncement on the just use of capital punishment. The development of that teaching over time has not loosened the state but rather more strictly bound it.

I would ask: how do you know what is true?

The truth may be evidenced as to its consistency with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the constant teaching of the Magisterium. The Magisterial component comes into being only when disputes within the Church rise to a level of threatening her unity. The Magisterium does not abandon either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition nor does it abandon what was believed in the past but integrates all.

To say now that capital punishment is evil means those “truths” are not what we thought they were…or maybe they’re not even truths at all.

The killing of human beings is evil. Protecting innocent lives permits the use of force, even lethal force if necessary, to provide that protection.

 

[Ender]

In justice, society may take away from a non-conforming citizen only that which society has provided – liberty of action. Society did not give the citizen his life. Recognizing this principle as just, limits society’s punishment to banishment and its equivalents, i.e. incarceration.

I want to return to this to show how it differs from what the church teaches. This assumes that what the State giveth the State can taketh away, which suggests that our rights come from the State. The church, however, holds that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, which the State exists to guarantee, but does not grant. Since the State is, within its limits, the dispenser of divine justice, its authority to take a man’s life is no less than its right to take his freedom or his wealth.

And thus that which is lawful to God is lawful for His ministers when they act by His mandate. It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. (Catechism of St. Thomas)

 

[Ender]

Who in the past 2,000 years did the Church name as heretic for opposing capital punishment?

Innocent III (1210) required the Waldensians to make a stipulated profession of faith before they could be reconciled to the church. That stipulation contained this:

“Concerning secular power we declare that without mortal sin it is possible to exercise a judgment of blood as long as one proceeds to bring punishment not in hatred but in judgment, not incautiously but advisedly”

St.Bellarmine wrote (c1600):
One of the chief heretical tenets of the Anabaptists and of the Trinitarians of the present day is, that it is not lawful for Christians to exercise magisterial power, nor should body-guards, tribunals, judgments, the right of capital punishment, etc., be maintained among Christians.

So, yes, the church considered it heretical to believe that States did not have the right to employ capital punishment.

And no one has claimed that to be true. The hierarchy lists those articles of faith which will not change. That hierarchy does not include past pronouncement on the just use of capital punishment.

It is not that anyone has claimed that most other doctrines are reversible, that is the inescapable conclusion if this one changes. I don’t know what hierarchical list you refer to, but I’ll bet it doesn’t include doctrines on homosexuality, euthanasia, contraception, and pretty much every controversial teaching she has. They all become suspect and open to “change” (that is, complete repudiation) if capital punishment is pronounced to be intrinsically evil.

The truth may be evidenced as to its consistency with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the constant teaching of the Magisterium.

How can you say that knowing that the teaching on capital punishment is based on Scripture, is part of the Sacred Tradition, and has been constantly taught by the Magisterium for 2000 years? This is my point: if this doctrine, which is so deeply a part of all three sources, is reversed, what can be considered irreversible?

The Magisterium does not abandon either Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition nor does it abandon what was believed in the past but integrates all.

It is irrational to hold that believing the opposite today of what was believed in the past is somehow an “integration” of teaching. How can yes and no be integrated?

The killing of human beings is evil. Protecting innocent lives permits the use of force, even lethal force if necessary, to provide that protection.

The second sentence repudiates the first. If killing is evil we may not do it for any reason (1756 One may not do evil so that good may result from it.) If killing can be justified it can only be because it is not per se evil.