Do you support the death penalty?

[LittleSoldier]

I think that perhaps the reasoning behind Numbers 35:31 is indicated by the phrase “You shall not take money” (Douay-Rheims) and “You shall not accept indemnity” (New American)

Here is the Douay-Rheims translation of Numbers 35:31:

You shall not take money of him that is guilty of blood, but he shall die forthwith.

Here is the New American Bible translation that has already been posted:

You shall not accept indemnity in place of the life of a murderer who deserves the death penalty; he must be put to death.

From what I have read it was common practice to buy (ransom) the life of a murderer. This obviously would make it easier for a wealthy person to not pay the price for his crime than a poor person (the same situation that is present in the US today). I believe this passage is stating that the practice will not be accepted. If a person deserves the death penalty he (or his relatives) will not be able to buy his way out of it.

I think that perhaps this passage has been taken out of context and can’t be adequately discussed without a knowledge of the relevant history. At least that’s my hunch.

Unfortunately I’ve looked at so many websites today that I can’t find the ones that discussed this back and I have to take my dog for a walk before it gets dark. I’ll try to find it later but I wanted to post this before I forgot about it. My apologies for no back-up documentation at this point. Please bear with me. Thanks.

 

[dudleysharp]

I have yet to read all the stuff given by Dudley Sharp, but I especially like the one from Cardinal Dulles. By the way, Dudley, notice that he never says that the DP is mandatory. He is rejecting the modern notion that the DP is never warranted. Every Catholic should agree with him. However, is it not equally wrong to say that the DP is required? That is certainly not supported by the Cardinal’s writings. .

I agree, but it is seen as required within the writings of other credble Catholic voices.

It is easy to read both Genesis 9:6 and Numbers 35:31 as commandments, as they are, just as with,

God/Jesus: ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.’ Matthew 15:4

This is a New Testament command, which references several of the same commands from God, in the same circumstance, from the OT.

It is not as if “must certainly” was wrongly translated or is hard to interpret.

 

[dudleysharp]

I’m curious as to what weight we should put to this statements you give from these earlier popes? Are Catechisms and popes from different centuries allowed to oppose each other’s teachings, as implied in this thread? Or are we to accept the mind of the Church and how she presents a teaching?

That in itself is proof for capital punishment to be mandatory? May I take other OT commands and describe them as mandatory for us?

Also, a grammatical point can be made on this passage from Numbers. Notice it says “a murderer who deserves the death penalty.” It might have a different meaning if it said “a murderer, who deserves the death penalty.” Notice the comma, which would help your position but isn’t in the translation given. I’m not really hinging my whole position on this – I’m just raising the question. Perhaps an expert in the original Hebrew could speak to this subtle difference, which does affect the interpretation.

All excellent points.

I think one issue is that there are obvious conflicts within the teachings.

I too noticed the conditional phrase, Is it all murderers deserve death or is it only certain murderers that deserve death? All of numbers is an important read for that very reason.

As Ender presented, scholars are having problems with the ambiguity.

One of the primary functions of the Catechism is to make things clear and it seems to have done a poor job of it, on this topic.

 

[Ender]

Hold on; where exactly in 2266 does it say that retribution is the primary objective? It doesn’t, of course. It says that the primary aim is to “redress the disorder.”

Let’s take one issue at a time and start with this: where the Catechism says “redress the disorder” does it mean “retribution”? Don’t consider whether retribution means execution, we can address that point after we clear up this one first. So: do you agree that retribution and redressing the disorder mean the same thing? I provided several quotes making that point including a citation from a law dictionary as well as the USCCB so I think all the bases are covered on this one.

Ender

 

[surritter]

Let’s take one issue at a time and start with this: where the Catechism says “redress the disorder” does it mean “retribution”? Don’t consider whether retribution means execution, we can address that point after we clear up this one first. So: do you agree that retribution and redressing the disorder mean the same thing? I provided several quotes making that point including a citation from a law dictionary as well as the USCCB so I think all the bases are covered on this one.

Don’t you recall that this ground was covered in (roughly) posts #90-146?

The Catechism in 2266 says “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” To answer the specific question, “redress” does not equate to “retribution.”

If I recall, one basis for your equating these two words was from Cardinal Dulles, who wrote that he four ends of punishment are rehabilitation, defense against the criminal, deterrence, and retribution. (He did not prioritize them, however.) We also now have quotations from a law dictionary and Mssrs. Dunnigan and Kaczor.

I must point out the irony: you are claiming that the Church has changed her teaching–effectively saying that the current Catechism is wrong–yet we are supposed to hold these four non-Magisterial quotations of your choosing as authoritative voices on the matter. Shrug.

 

[dudleysharp]

Recall that others in this thread have been quick to dismiss the teachings of Pope John Paul II and our current Catechism.

I don’t think anyone has been been quick to dismiss them. I think it was well thought out review and challenge. In fact, it appears that the crioticism has been more thought out than some of the writings in EV and CCC, as:

Both EV and CCC use prudential judgements based upon secular evaluations of prison security, in an attempt to justify a change in the death penalty teachings.

As with:

2267 "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’ John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

“Very rare, if not practiaclly non-existant”?

Hardly.

Just a cursory review of criminal justice realities should have made it impossible for PJPII to make such a statement or for the CCC to re-emphasize it and with many years within which to fact check it, which it appears both failed to do.

Inexplicably, the Church has chosen the path that leads to more innocents at risk and more innocents murdered.

Since 1973, in the US system, considered one of the best managed in the world, it looks like there have been about 28,000 innocents murdered by those murderers WHO HAVE MURDERED BEFORE, or recidicist murderers; and it also appears that about 100,000 innocents have been murdered by those criminals we have released early on probation, parole or other early releases, also since 1973, while those released criminals were “under government supervision”.

Let’s look at “the means at the State’s disposal”.

All villages, towns, cities, states, territories, countries and broad government unions have widely varying degrees of police protections and prison security. Murderers escape, harm and murder in prison and are given such leeway as to murder and/or harm, again, because of “mercy” to the murderer, leniency and irresponsibility to murderers, who are released or otherwise given the opportunity to cause catastrophic losses to the innocent when such innocents are harmed and murdered by unjust aggressors. (4)

Incarcerated prisoners plan murders, escapes and all types of criminal activity, using proxies or cell phones in directing free world criminal activities.

All of this is well known. (4)

Some countries are so idiotic, reckless and callous as to allow terrorists to sign pledges that they will not harm again and then they are released, bound only by their word, a worthless pledge resulting in more innocent blood. (4)

It has always been so.

The Catechism, as does EV, avoids the many realities whereby the unjust aggressor has too many opportunities to harm again. The authors of the Catechism appear to have no grasp of reality. (4)

SEE FOOTNOTES below

 

[dudleysharp]

FOOTNOTES

1. a) “Prisons and the Education of Terrorists”, Ian M. Cuthbertson, WORLD POLICY JOURNAL, FALL 2004

“The use of prisons as a means of recruiting new members into terrorist organizations while providing advanced training to existing members is hardly a new phenomenon. FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS (my emphasis) , European countries have been beset by a variety of nationalist and leftist terrorist groups, some of them highly sophisticated organizations with large rosters of combat and support personnel.”

" . . . terrorist groups were able to retain a large degree of cohesion within the prison setting, which they discovered to be a favorable environment for training members in new skills and planning future operations."

“Al-Qaeda and its network of associated organizations has taken full advantage of the relatively lax practices in European, and even some American, prisons. The pool of potential recruits is vast.”

" . . . in October 2003, John Pistole, the FBI’s executive assistant director of counterterrorism/counterintelligence, called U.S. correctional institutions a “viable venue for radicalization and recruitment” for al-Qaeda. Harley Lappin, the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, sees the bloated prison population of disgruntled and violent inmates as being ‘particularly vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists.’ "

b) “Hell in the heart of paradise”

"The Bali bombers were allowed to preach to the prison population, radicalising scores of impressionable young Muslims, as well as fund and organise subsequent attacks from their cells."4:40PM Monday November 23, 2009 Source: AAP , tvnz.co.nz/travel-news/hell-i…radise-3174543

c) Anwar al Awlaki, a spiritual leader at two mosques where three 9/11 hijackers worshipped, a native-born U.S. citizen who left the United States in 2002, was arrested in 2006 with a small group of suspected al-Qaida militants in the capital San’a. He was released more than a year later after signing a pledge he will not break the law or leave the country. He is now missing and encourages violence against Americans from his website,

Awlaki used his site to declare support for the Somali terrorist group, al-Shabaab and celebrated the acts of US Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who murdered 13 and wounding 29 in a shooting spree. al Awlaki called upon other Muslim’s to duplicate those acts. “Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter”, Associated Press, 11/9/09, 6:19 pm ET news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091109/…t_hood_muslims

UPDATE: “New Evidence Suggests Radical Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Was an Overlooked Key Player in 9/11 Plot”, foxnews.com/politics/2011…key-player-11/

UPDATE: al-Awlaki killed in a CIA drone strike - no more a living threat.

d) 16 al Quaeda Escape in Jailbreak in Iraq
theage.com.au/world/alqae…0924-g4no.html

e) 23 escape from Yemen prison, 13 are al Quaeda
globalsecurity.org/securi…k_in_yemen.htm

f) Governor commutes 108 year sentence: Offender later murders 4 policemen, while on bond for two child rapes
google.com/hostednews/ap/…OLEwwD9CACTHG0

g) Repeat sex offender,“cripple” serving life, overpowers guards, escapes
blog.taragana.com/law/2009/11…ongoing-17934/

h) Officials “embarrassed” by Texas death row inmate escape, Houston Chronicle, November 06, 2005
policeone.com/corrections…inmate-escape/

“. . . Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney.” “After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.” “This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it.” “There were multiple failures.” Trial jurors and victim’s relatives were terrified.

i) the Holy See could find these types of cases every day, seemingly, forever, if it cared to look.

 

[dudleysharp]

snip
The Catechism in 2266 says “Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense.” To answer the specific question, “redress” does not equate to “retribution.”

snip

I must point out the irony: you are claiming that the Church has changed her teaching–effectively saying that the current Catechism is wrong–yet we are supposed to hold these four non-Magisterial quotations of your choosing as authoritative voices on the matter. Shrug.

I won’t speak for Ender, but Ender has used numerous Magesterial quotations throughout these discussions to defend his position, therefore the two non Majesterial sources he used were not to be used, as independent, solely removed from Majesterial considerations, but instead, were used as well respected known scholars, who were also using their knowledge of Majesterial teachings, to further support the position that Ender has built.

That is clearly what Ender was doing. Instead of using “Ender” as the source for the Majesterial sources, Ender saw it as increasing credibility for his position by using known scholars to do the same thing that Ender had been doing.

It was good sourcing for the discussion.

No irony, there, just greater support, from academic scholars, that what Ender was pointing out, had some additonal, credible support.

It is best for all of us not to look at many of our posts atomistically, but, rather in the context of the entire discussion

Ender may correct this, but this is how I see what he is doing.

 

[surritter]

I don’t think anyone has been been quick to dismiss them. I think it was well thought out review and challenge.

That’s true… I’m sure these were well thought out. I meant that there are significant implications when going on the record against the Catechism and the bishop of Rome. It doesn’t mean that discussion is unwarranted, but that extra care has to be taken. When something from the Catechism sounds wrong, the person must first explore every possible avenue of the background, context, and interpretation of the passage. For instance, your next statement:

“Very rare, if not practiaclly non-existant”?

Hardly.

Just a cursory review of criminal justice realities should have made it impossible for PJPII to make such a statement or for the CCC to re-emphasize it and with many years within which to fact check it, which it appears both failed to do.

It sounds like you’re assuming that the pope is declaring the current penal systems of the world to be adequate. No – he is saying in that quotation that society has the means to create a just penal system. It should indeed be rare and non-existent if we would not parole dangerous criminals.

Whether we use those “means” or not is the problem.

 

[surritter]

I won’t speak for Ender, but Ender has used numerous Magesterial quotations throughout these discussions to defend his position, therefore the two non Majesterial sources he used were not to be used, as independent, solely removed from Majesterial considerations, but instead, were used as well respected known scholars, who were also using their knowledge of Majesterial teachings, to further support the position that Ender has built.

That is clearly what Ender was doing. Instead of using “Ender” as the source for the Majesterial sources, Ender saw it as increasing credibility for his position by using known scholars to do the same thing that Ender had been doing.

It was good sourcing for the discussion.

No irony, there, just greater support, from academic scholars, that what Ender was pointing out, had some additonal, credible support.

It is best for all of us not to look at many of our posts atomistically, but, rather in the context of the entire discussion

Ender may correct this, but this is how I see what he is doing.

No Magisterial document has ever said that “redress” equates with “retribution” which equates to “capital punishment.” To connect these supposed dots is the issue, and one that exceeds the Magisterial writings.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I must point out the irony: you are claiming that the Church has changed her teaching–effectively saying that the current Catechism is wrong–yet we are supposed to hold these four non-Magisterial quotations of your choosing as authoritative voices on the matter. Shrug.

You’re right.

Every faithful Catholic must adhere to the teachings of the Magisterium. Not agreeing with those teachings and/or not liking those teachings represents a problem on the part of the laity - not the Magisterium. The Magisterium has spoken; the CCC does not go against Church teaching (we know this because of the *Nihil Obstat *and Imprimatur), and that is the end of the discussion for me.

I will do what I am supposed to do as a Catholic. If I start disagreeing with Church teaching as presented by the teaching authority of the Church then I will have to either become a Cafeteria Catholic or leave the Church. If what is taught is wrong, the Church cannot be the Church founded by Jesus.

I’m going to remain a faithful Catholic and by that I mean faithful to all Church teaching. Obedience to God is the key to everything, IMHO.

As for the death penalty, it would be easy to present case histories which are admittedly tragic and sad. But murderers have dignity, just as their victims. Often their lives have been tragic and sad, also. Every single human being is created in the image of God and is loved by Him and must be treated with dignity. If we can protect the innocent (and we can) we should not execute. It is an affront to the dignity of the murderer as he is a loved child of God and it is not necessary for protection. That is crystal-clear to me.

There are numerous ways to interpret the bible. I don’t believe that any of us are experts on biblical history, sociology, Hebrew as used in biblical times, Greek as used in biblical times, Aramaic as used in biblical times, anthropology, or any of the other fields we would need to be expert in in order to determine what a bible passage, probably taken out of context, means. Basing a belief (that goes against Church teaching) on non-Magisterial sources is an error. The Magisterium is there for a reason. Nobody posting in this thread is part of the Magisterium. And I’m continually troubled by seeing a bible passage presented as though that passage alone provides the ultimate, undeniable answer to a very complicated question.

I will keep everyone in my prayers.

 

[dudleysharp]

It sounds like you’re assuming that the pope is declaring the current penal systems of the world to be adequate. No – he is saying in that quotation that society has the means to create a just penal system. It should indeed be rare and non-existent if we would not parole dangerous criminals.

Please re-read:

2267 "Today, IN FACT, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, CASES OF ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR SUPPRESSION OF THE OFFENDER - MEANING THE DEATH PENALTY ‘TODAY . . . ARE VERY RARE, IF NOT PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT.’ John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).

PJPII is stating this as a fact issue. Good bye to the death penalty based upon a highly flawed secular conclusion.

 

[LittleSoldier]

2267 "Today, IN FACT, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, CASES OF ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR SUPPRESSION OF THE OFFENDER - MEANING THE DEATH PENALTY ‘TODAY . . . ARE VERY RARE, IF NOT PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT.’ [John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae 56).
PJPII is stating this as a fact issue. Good bye to the death penalty based upon a highly flawed secular conclusion.

It appears that what has been presented is a montage of CCC 2267 and *Evangelium Vitae *56. What has been presented as “2267” at the beginning then appears to be attributed to Blessed John Paul II at the end. Yet what is presented is not found in Evangelium Vitae56 or CCC 2267. There are quotation marks after “2267” but a singular quotation mark at the end of the “quote.” I don’t know where this “quote” has come from.

Here is the complete text of Evangelium Vitae,56:

"This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with **human dignity **and thus, in the end, with God’s plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is “to redress the disorder caused by the offence”. Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfils the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people’s safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.
"It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.
"In any event, the principle set forth in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church remains valid: “If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person”.
*Evangelium Vitae,*56, all underlining and bolding have been added by this poster for emphasis]

The alleged quote by Blessed John Paul II, which somewhat repeats the position held by the Church in CCC 2267 is stating that it is a fact (“in fact”) that the State has the means ("given the means at the State’s disposal) to keep the guilty away from the innocent (“by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it”), while not depriving the guilty of the possibility of redeeming himself (“without depriving him definitely of the possibility of redeeming himself”).

The quote is not saying “Good bye to the death penalty.” Where you have quoted in all upper-case letters, CCC 2267 (and the Pope when he quotes CCC 2267) uses the terms “VERY RARE” and “IF NOT PRACTICALLY NON-EXISTENT.” Neither of these terms indicates that the Church is saying “good bye” to the death penalty; what they are indicating is that sometimes at the present time there *is *a need for the death penalty. And every Catholic should agree with that. That same teaching is presented in the CCC 2267:

"Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

"If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’”

It is not a highly flawed secular conclusion.

Nowhere (that I can find) does *Evangelium Vitae *state that the violation of personal and social rights which public authority must redress by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime means that the death penalty **must **be used. An adequate punishment for the crime is not always the death penalty. This is clear both from *Evangelium Vitae *56 and CCC 2267.

-----continued in next post-----
[/quote]

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of above post-----

Someone presented a post which mentioned Cain. Blessed John Paul II also discussed Cain in Evangelium Vitae and I think what he said is very important in regards to this thread:

And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel’s death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is precisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: "Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. … God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide".

*Evangelium Vitae *8, all underlining and bolding added by this poster for emphasis]
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

 

[LittleSoldier]

Addendum to above post: The correct part of Evangelium Vitae is 9, not 8. I apologize for the error.

 

[LittleSoldier]

OK, I believe I found out why there appear to be two different versions of CCC 2267.

“The Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church includes the corrections promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 8 September 1997. These corrections to the English text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church were made to harmonize it with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II on the same date.”

[underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

The changes to 2267 are as follows:

This paragraph will be changed to read:

"Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

"If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I think this explains why two different versions of CCC 2267 have been presented in this thread. I wasn’t aware that any changes had been made (but I am now! )

 

[dudleysharp]

It appears that what has been presented is a montage of CCC 2267 and *Evangelium Vitae *56. What has been presented as “2267” at the beginning then appears to be attributed to Blessed John Paul II at the end. Yet what is presented is not found in Evangelium Vitae56 or CCC 2267. There are quotation marks after “2267” but a singular quotation mark at the end of the “quote.” I don’t know where this “quote” has come from

LS:

You may be looking at a previous version of CCC 2267 and not the current, “final” one. I believe there were 2 or 3 changes before the final one was adopted. At one point I think I found 4-5 differnt versions being reviewed online.

The version I listed, is the most recent from the Vatican site, here:

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

I posted it exactly as presented.

If you have a more updated version, please let me know.

Thank you.

 

[dudleysharp]

OK, I believe I found out why there appear to be two different versions of CCC 2267.

snip

“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I think this explains why two different versions of CCC 2267 have been presented in this thread. I wasn’t aware that any changes had been made (but I am now! )

It appears this is the same version as mine, with the exception that the Vatican site includes what you have as footnote 68 the Vatican has the refernece within the text.

As I said above, I believe the Church went through 2-3 amendments before finalizing this section, for which I believe I had seen 4-5 differenet considerations on line, through the years.

I think the Church works for decades for a new Catechism and the Church worked to quickly amend the punishment section based upon EV, with the enthusiastic relish of death penalty abolitionsists who made a mess of it.

Catechism’s are to make the teachings clear. The reason there has been not stop debate on these changes is because the changes are anything but clear.

That is why, eventually, this section must be re written. The sooner the better, meaning, maybe within the next 40 years or so.

 

[dudleysharp]

An adequate punishment for the crime is not always the death penalty. This is clear both from *Evangelium Vitae *56 and CCC 2267.-----

No one has said that it was. There are, however, well known, authoritative Catholic teachings, from the Magisterial tradition, that find the death penalty to be mandatory, as presented.

That is one of the many dilemmas that face this discussion and one of the reasons I think this section must be re written.

 

[dudleysharp]

-----continuation of above post-----

Someone presented a post which mentioned Cain. Blessed John Paul II also discussed Cain in Evangelium Vitae and I think what he said is very important in regards to this thread:

And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel’s death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is precisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: "Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God’s mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. … God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide".

*Evangelium Vitae *8, all underlining and bolding added by this poster for emphasis]
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

I agree, this is very important.

PJPII used a very common and standard death penalty abolitionist biblical reference, Cain, as if it were some authoritative anti death penalty message. It wasn’t.

As is customary for the death penalty abolitionists, PJPII stopped there.

There was no refernce to the flood, an ocurrence after Cain, which obviously involved God justly killing all of mankind, with the exception of one small family.

How do we view that in the context of:

“God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide”?

I think it can only be viewed in the context of an anti death penalty Pope, using standard, non inclusive biblical text, to make a very poor point, in contraditions of the clear teachings to the contrary.

I think that is what has been so confusing and upsetting to so many, because it is so obvious what was going on and LS used it, not recognizing why it truly is important to this discussion.

It is because of the problems which PJPII introduced into this discussion and from which we now have the mess within the CCC.