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

[o_mlly]

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.

No, the principle does not suggest that our human rights come from the State; only our political rights as dutiful citizens come from the state.

we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable right

And the first unalienable right is the right to life. which the State may not take as a punishment for crimes.

 

[Ender]

And the first unalienable right is the right to life. which the State may not take as a punishment for crimes.

Either the right to life is unalienable or it isn’t. What your position requires is that we believe that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. If it is truly unalienable and the State may not take it then she is forbidden to take it preemptively to prevent a crime. If she may take it for any reason at all then it cannot be considered an unalienable right.

 

[o_mlly]

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

No heresies were declared on those who opposed capital punishment as an absolute right of the state. The Church today continues to teach the state’s conditional right to inflict capital punishment: if no other means to protect society exist.

They all become suspect and open to “change” (that is, complete repudiation) if capital punishment is pronounced to be intrinsically evil.

Capital punishment has not been pronounced to be intrinsically evil.

if this doctrine, which is so deeply a part of all three sources, is reversed, what can be considered irreversible?

The morality on the use of the death penalty has not been reversed; it has developed with the times.

Before chemical contraception, the teaching on birth control did not and could not envision the morality of employing a technology that did not exist. The existence of penal systems capable of protecting society fall in the same scheme that requires the development of doctrine.

The second sentence repudiates the first. If killing is evil we may not do it for any reason

Review the double effect principles once more.

 

[o_mlly]

Either the right to life is unalienable or it isn’t. What your position requires is that we believe that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn’t. If it is truly unalienable and the State may not take it then she is forbidden to take it preemptively to prevent a crime. If she may take it for any reason at all then it cannot be considered an unalienable right.

The right to life includes the right to protect the rights of others to their lives. In such an instance, an unjust aggressor, by his own action, loses his right but it is not taken from him; he relinquished his right.

Your point on CP as a preemptive act of the state is reasonable. Do we place such judgments in realm of prudence, practical reason as we do the existence of an absolute secure penal system?

 

[Dovekin]

Pope Leo I in the fifth century and Pope Nicholas I in the ninth century made it clear that the Church herself could not be directly involved in capital punishment; but the pontiffs assumed that the State was divinely authorized to do so. So, too, the Councils of Toledo (675) and Fourth Lateran (1215) forbade the clergy to take direct part in the juridical process or sentencing of a person on a capital charge

If we consider a man in himself, 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. Nevertheless, as stated above (Article 2) the slaying of a sinner becomes lawful in relation to the common good , which is corrupted by sin.

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

This is a selection of the Church teaching quoted recently. If you read the bold parts, it is apparent that the teaching is “preserving life”; “unlawful to kill any man”; “could not be directly involved in capital punishment.” Pope Francis is continuing in that same line, the underlying teaching that precedes allowing the death penalty. He develops the idea to state that the exception allowed to the state does not apply.

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)

Why did you quote this? It clearly shows that capital punishment is unjust. “by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order” cannot mean the person is eliminated. Francis is applying this principle, since death disrupts the equilibrium of Justice, capital punishment is unjust.

 

[Ender]

Before we go any further let me first say I appreciate that you’ve been willing to discuss such a contentious topic without finding it appropriate to be insulting. That may seem like a very low bar, but it is one that more often than not is too high for many posters to clear.

No heresies were declared on those who opposed capital punishment as an absolute right of the state. The Church today continues to teach the state’s conditional right to inflict capital punishment: if no other means to protect society exist.

This is what you believe JPII taught. Francis said: “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”. So the question is: if it is inadmissible because it is an attack on the dignity of the person, what allows it to be used for any purpose? Wouldn’t using it even for defense be excluded if man’s life is truly inviolable?

It seems to me that you have to choose which pope to follow: JPII, who allowed capital punishment for defense, or Francis who says it is inadmissible because man’s life is inviolable. Which pope are we to follow? If Francis is right and capital punishment is truly inadmissible, then JPII was wrong to permit it for any reason, but if JPII was right then it cannot be considered inadmissible and Francis is mistaken.

Capital punishment has not been pronounced to be intrinsically evil.

This puts you at odds with @godisgood77 who said: “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.” (Post #116), which if nothing else supports an earlier contention that this teaching is ambiguous.

Before chemical contraception, the teaching on birth control did not and could not envision the morality of employing a technology that did not exist.

The church was never concerned with the means used to contracept. What she condemned was any act that intentionally rendered conception possible. The means were immaterial.

Review the double effect principles once more.

Here it is:

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 key point is that the killing of the aggressor must not be intended. As should be obvious, the death of the prisoner is very much intended; it is the whole point of the execution. An execution has in fact not occurred unless the person ends up dead. Since his death is intended this violates the principle of double effect and rules out executions as a form of self-defense.

 

[Ender]

The right to life includes the right to protect the rights of others to their lives. In such an instance, an unjust aggressor, by his own action, loses his right but it is not taken from him; he relinquished his right.

This is actually quite close to what the church has taught, except it was applied to those who committed the crime, not those who merely threaten to.

Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live. (Pius XII)

Notice the key point here: the state is authorized to execute the criminal not to prevent crime, but in expiation of the crime already committed. This is a significant aspect of punishment that has simply been lost in these discussions. The concept of punishment as defense is exactly what Pius explicitly rejected:

"Most of the modern theories of penal law explain penalty and justify it in the final analysis as a means of protection, that is, defense of the community against criminal undertakings… but those theories fail to consider the expiation of the crime committed, which penalizes the violation of the law as the prime function of penalty"

Your point on CP as a preemptive act of the state is reasonable. Do we place such judgments in realm of prudence, practical reason as we do the existence of an absolute secure penal system?

The judgment of whether or not to use capital punishment is assuredly a judgment, and it is one that lies with the State to make. I believe that the statements from JPII and Francis represent their own judgments in the matter, and because they are prudential judgments they are not doctrinal, do not oblige our assent, and are in no way contrary to the church’s traditional teaching on the matter.

 

[Emeraldlady]

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.

These are simply ridiculous claims. Over the last more than a century the rest of the Christian world has abolished the death penalty with the blessing of the Church because we accept what has always been held by the Church, that while it is permitted as a recourse within human justice, it is forbidden if it is not serving the common good.

It never had the nature of an unchangeable dogma or a divine command. The death penalty has always been a ‘sentence’ like any sentence ie flogging, stocks, exile, all of which have been abolished. You know that non Americans come here are read your supposed ‘defense of Catholic teaching’ and the covert slight against the rest of the ‘heathen’ countries who’ve abolished the death penalty. Yet you seem to think you should be unaccountable for such insulting statements.

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.

The fact that in the one sentence you claim something to be true and then in the next criticising the Popes grasp of truth, is telling.

Like Hobbes, you argue under the cover of some theistic principle, ie the ‘divine right’ as authority, but are in fact, defending an atheistic goal of an ‘absolute’ human power, morally unaccountable to anyone including God.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Before we go any further let me first say I appreciate that you’ve been willing to discuss such a contentious topic without finding it appropriate to be insulting. That may seem like a very low bar, but it is one that more often than not is too high for many posters to clear.

He says while insulting the intelligence of every other non US Christian country in the world.

 

[o_mlly]

Before we go any further let me first say I appreciate that you’ve been willing to discuss such a contentious topic without finding it appropriate to be insulting. That may seem like a very low bar, but it is one that more often than not is too high for many posters to clear.

Reasonable men may argue civilly. Although, I have at times stumbled over that low bar.

This is what you believe JPII taught. Francis said: “ the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person ”. So the question is: if it is inadmissible because it is an attack on the dignity of the person, what allows it to be used for any purpose? Wouldn’t using it even for defense be excluded if man’s life is truly inviolable?

It seems to me that you have to choose which pope to follow: JPII, who allowed capital punishment for defense, or Francis who says it is inadmissible because man’s life is inviolable. Which pope are we to follow? If Francis is right and capital punishment is truly inadmissible, then JPII was wrong to permit it for any reason, but if JPII was right then it cannot be considered inadmissible and Francis is mistaken.

I prefer to take Pope Francis in his reflected written word rather than reported sound bites from speeches or press interviews. As I posted, I believe a reasonable interpretation of 2267 is in concert with St. JPII in his encyclicals on capital punishment.

The church was never concerned with the means used to contracept. What she condemned was any act that intentionally rendered conception possible. The means were immaterial.

I suspect you meant “impossible” above. As nothing renders conception impossible except total abstinence, the Church does recognize acceptable means to avoid conception: NFP methods. Paul VI, against the advice many in the Curia, taught that artificial means are immoral.

Here it is:

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 key point is that the killing of the aggressor must not be intended. As should be obvious, the death of the prisoner is very much intended; it is the whole point of the execution. An execution has in fact not occurred unless the person ends up dead. Since his death is intended this violates the principle of double effect and rules out executions as a form of self-defense.

The distinction necessary to permit an act which has a good and bad effect is the end in view, the intended end. The teaching in 2267 clearly says that the just use of capital punishment requires that the only end in view must be the protection of innocent life. The use of capital punishment where the intended end is the death of the prisoner is immoral.

 

[o_mlly]

The judgment of whether or not to use capital punishment is assuredly a judgment, and it is one that lies with the State to make. I believe that the statements from JPII and Francis represent their own judgments in the matter, and because they are prudential judgments they are not doctrinal, do not oblige our assent, and are in no way contrary to the church’s traditional teaching on the matter.

Church teaching maintains the state’s right to execute but she has never mandated its use. To the contrary, the development of the teaching has restricted its just use.

If one’s political authority determines that capital punishment be abolished then the matter is settled. Or is it? Does one strain against a civil law that does not violate Catholic teaching? I think not.

 

[godisgood77]

This puts you at odds with @godisgood77 who said: “ 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 .” (Post #116), which if nothing else supports an earlier contention that this teaching is ambiguous.

To be clear, my post that Ender is referencing reflects my opinion as I clearly stated. I made no reference to anything being intrinsically evil.

 

[Ender]

I suspect you meant “impossible” above.

I did, yes. Thank you for catching that.

Paul VI, against the advice many in the Curia, taught that artificial means are immoral.

This is an interesting point, and I think it is worth comparing these two situations: Francis’ statement on capital punishment versus Paul’s on contraception.

First, Paul wrote an entire encyclical on contraception where he explained the rationale for the conclusions he reached. He tied together previous church teaching with the natural law, and showed how the conclusion reached was true. There was no ambiguity and he left no question about the origin of the law.

Since the Church did not make either of these laws, she cannot be their arbiter—only their guardian and interpreter. It could never be right for her to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man.

He also left no doubt about the (intrinsically) immoral nature of contraception.

“…it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.”

Compare that with Francis’ change to the catechism: an assertion that the church only now fully comprehends man’s dignity, an assertion that “a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state”, but we are not told what the new understanding is, and finally an assertion that capital punishment is inadmissible, leaving open the interpretation of whether that means it is inherently evil or simply judged to be harmful in current circumstances.

Surely you see the difference between the way these two were presented; are we to assume those differences are irrelevant?

Church teaching maintains the state’s right to execute but she has never mandated its use.

Something cannot be universally mandated that contains a judgment in its application.

Does one strain against a civil law that does not violate Catholic teaching? I think not.

The church (as opposed to many of her clergy) is silent on the particulars of secular law except where they violate church doctrine. Whether to support or oppose them is the task of the laity.

I made no reference to anything being intrinsically evil.

It was not my intention to suggest otherwise; you indicated a concern about the term. As I understand it, however, something that is “.…always wrong. Full stop” is an intrinsic evil in that it is evil without exception and without regard to ones reason for doing it.

 

[o_mlly]

This is an interesting point, and I think it is worth comparing these two situations: Francis’ statement on capital punishment versus Paul’s on contraception.

First, Paul wrote an entire encyclical on contraception where he explained the rationale for the conclusions he reached. He tied together previous church teaching with the natural law, and showed how the conclusion reached was true. There was no ambiguity and he left no question about the origin of the law.

I agree that Paul VI’s format indicating the weight of authority for the teaching proscribing artificial birth control rises far above the format used by Francis that underlies the rescript of 2267.

The authority of the Catechism is in its footnotes. I note the footnote for the rescript of 2267 is not an Encyclical, the fourth highest weight for Magisterial teachings, but a papal Message, the lowest weight.
(See https://www.ewtn.com/holysee/pontiff/categories.asp)

While papal Messages do not require full assent, all papal communications require reverent respect, that is, religious submission of mind and will.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Compare that with Francis’ change to the catechism: an assertion that the church only now fully comprehends man’s dignity, an assertion that “ a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state ”, but we are not told what the new understanding is, and finally an assertion that capital punishment is inadmissible, leaving open the interpretation of whether that means it is inherently evil or simply judged to be harmful in current circumstances.

First it is not stated anywhere that mans dignity is now fully comprehended. That’s a deliberately misleading statement. Understanding will continue to develop and grow until the end of the world.

Secondly, since you consider the experience of other nations and their Christian understanding of abolition to be ‘irrelevant’ and unworthy of entertaining, you only have yourself to blame for that deficiency. None so blind as those who will not see.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Honestly, This “development” ( change of teaching) has taken a huge toll on my faith. I’ve been doubting for a couple years now, but ever since this change my faith has taken a huge nosedive and is now hanging on by a thread… I’m starting to see that Catholicism has its contradictions and inconsistencies like any other religion… Maybe I’m being dramatic? I hope so!

It’s unfortunate that you’ve been influenced by propaganda. Try and look at the big picture. No other Christian country in the world supports the death penalty anymore. It’s been being abolished for more than a century without affecting Catholic peoples faith. You’re being told that supporting the death penalty is essential Catholic doctrine and that is an outrageous deception.

 

[Trying2overcome]

Not supporting the death penalty, and abolishing it, isn’t the same as condemning the principle itself. Obviously, just because states may execute criminals without sin doesn’t mean they must… I understand the enforcing the death penalty may be evil, depending on many factors. And I understand that states may refuse to enforce the death penalty without doing wrong. But to call the capital punishment evil in and of itself is where it becomes troubling. And that’s what it seems Pope Francis and many Catholics are doing nowadays. It’s like a complete turnaround in doctrine.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Not supporting the death penalty, and abolishing it, isn’t the same as condemning the principle itself. Obviously, just because states may execute criminals without sin doesn’t mean they must… I understand the enforcing the death penalty may be evil, depending on many factors. And I understand that states may refuse to enforce the death penalty without doing wrong. But to call the capital punishment evil in and of itself is where it becomes troubling. And that’s what it seems Pope Francis and many Catholics are doing nowadays. It’s like a complete turnaround in doctrine.

The Catechism specifically acknowledges that the death penalty was accepted in the past so it is false to say that the Church now calls it ‘evil in and of itself’ (intrinsically evil), so that should not trouble you at all.

The Church is actually responding to those who are trying to completely turn around the doctrine by denying that the death penalty can ever be legitimately abolished. That is a false claim. I’d actually have a stab in the dark here and suspect that if the no abolition faction keep up this false claim that the Church will go as far to deem it heresy.

 

[Ender]

But to call the capital punishment evil in and of itself is where it becomes troubling. And that’s what it seems Pope Francis and many Catholics are doing nowadays. It’s like a complete turnaround in doctrine.

If capital punishment was in fact proclaimed per se evil it would be a complete reversal of doctrine. It would proclaim the heretics on this issue were right and the church was wrong, but that is not what has happened. That this is the interpretation many have given to Francis’ statement doesn’t make that interpretation valid. It hasn’t happened because it cannot happen.