Has teaching on the death penalty officially been changed?

[Ender]

It’s understandable that some people don’t see these situations in the same way.

If the moderators ever lift the moratorium on discussing capital punishment we could discuss this, but since the thread will likely be closed as soon as it is reported to one of them, we can’t. Banning discussion seems an odd approach for a discussion board to take, nonetheless, for the time being at least even talking about this topic is forbidden.

 

[GodSpawned]

The moratorium has been lifted for this thread: Has teaching on the death penalty officially been changed? - #3 by StephieNorthCo
@camoderator, can you merge this thread into the other one?

Update- merge completed

 

[Hereiam]

Its not surprising…the Judge is a learned man in the law of the nation, but his theological justifications have no more merit than yours or mine. There are plenty of Catholics who claim use of contraceptives is theologically justified, that not caring of the poor is theologically justified, etc…take it with a grain of salt…might be as simple as “Thou protest too much [your honor]”.

 

[Ender]

The Holy Father has ordered that the relevant paragraph in the Catechism be revised. At a minimum, I would say the faithful must give at least intellectual assent to this… even if it’s not “de fide” or “infallible” per se.

This is the point I tried to address earlier: what, if any, level of assent is required when popes and bishops speak out? This argument seems convincing to me:

The Church’s “extraordinary” magisterium, capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine, can proceed solely-papally or papally-episcopally ; but her “ordinary” magisterium, also capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine, can proceed only papally-episcopally . As Francis’ move on the Catechism hardly qualifies as papal-episcopal, and there being no such thing as an ‘purely papal, ordinary, magisterium’ (the term itself seems an oxymoron, implying that some significant points of Church teaching have been taught only by popes!), then Francis’ views on the death penalty might (I stress, might, given the infallibility concerns above) contribute to the Church’s ordinary magisterium but they do not, and cannot, control it.

How to sum up the traditional understanding of this matter so far? Maybe thus: If it’s not extraordinary, it’s at most ordinary, but if it’s ordinary, it requires popes and bishops around the world and over a long, long time , and not just a pope in a claim or two.

All of which is why the questions surrounding the death penalty impact not only that very important social and civil issue but also the Church’s understanding and operation of her own magisterium.

In case I left out parts that make this clear: if Francis’ statement on the subject is not part of either the extraordinary or ordinary magisterium, it does not compel our assent.

 

[Ender]

Despite having posted here, I’m not able to find this thread directly. I can only get to it by first opening a closed thread on the subject under <Apologetics<Social Justice and then clicking on the Split/Merged link in that one.

This thread indicates it is located under <Apologetics, but I see no threads at all there. Can anyone get here directly?

 

[Pug]

if Francis’ statement on the subject is not part of either the extraordinary or ordinary magisterium, it does not compel our assent.

We are required to offer religious assent or submission. See LG 24.

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

There are distinct limitations to this type of assent. It may be relevant that the pope has spoken several times and put his ideas about the death penalty into the CCC. This is not one of his airplane remarks.

 

[Pug]

Here is the direct link to the oldest of the two merged threads

Has teaching on the death penalty officially been changed? Apologetics

Has Pope Francis merely claimed death penalty as wrong or has he really changed the Churches teaching regarding the matter?

Perhaps you are using “dark theme”. Some of the mechanics of the website are now broken for dark theme (see complaints in the feedback forum). You can fix it by using the default theme and going to apologetics and from there using a drop-down menu to select “none” under apologetics. Then it is directly visible.

 

[Ender]

We are required to offer religious assent or submission. See LG 24.

CCC 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

This was the precise point I addressed in my earlier citation: “…her “ordinary” magisterium, also capable of binding the faithful in faith and doctrine, can proceed only papally-episcopally” There is no evidence that this has proceeded papally-episcopally, and it therefore does not satisfy the requirement that we give it religious assent.

 

[Ender]

You can fix it by using the default theme and going to apologetics and from there using a drop-down menu to select “none” under apologetics.

That did it - thank you.

 

[Pug]

I’ve only seen that wording in Edward Peter’s (canon lawyer) blog, and I thought he was trying to talk about the type of teaching that is of the faith, that we must believe. He says his language (papally-episcopally) is in reference to the ordinary magisterium, which he expounds upon here:

The ordinary magisterium, one must see, takes a long, long time, to develop; it requires repetition and consistency over many generations, this, not simply on the part of popes but also by the bishops around the world, and even incorporates, to some extent, the lived acceptance of teachings by Catholic pastors, academics, and rank-and-file faithful through time.

This makes it seem to me that his language is about things that we have to believe, like faith believe. But religious assent is not about things we have to believe like that, so I don’t know how to understand what he says. Likely my own lack of understanding is coming into play here.

For reference, I supply a link to a section of a theology textbook on the topic, but he is one of those authors that I know from experience is best read in the context of his whole system, since it is a specific system to Grisez.

 

[BartholomewB]

… or has he really changed the Churches teaching regarding the matter?

At a minimum, I would say the faithful must give at least intellectual assent to this… even if it’s not “de fide” or “infallible” per se.

Pope Francis cannot change church teaching.

He can’t change Church teaching on this.

If the catechism however is not the norm for teaching, then, not necessarily.

if Francis’ statement on the subject is not part of either the extraordinary or ordinary magisterium, it does not compel our assent.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church was compiled at the initiative of Pope St. John Paul II, who described it as follows (link below):

• It faithfully reiterates the Christian doctrine of all times.
• It presents the Truth revealed by God in Christ and entrusted by Him to His Church.
• It explains this Truth as it is believed celebrated, lived and prayed by the Church.

As I understand those words, spoken in 1992, they can only mean that any change to the CCC necessarily means a change to Catholic doctrine.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2NWCAT.HTM

 

[Ender]

I’ve only seen that wording in Edward Peter’s (canon lawyer) blog, and I thought he was trying to talk about the type of teaching that is of the faith, that we must believe. He says his language (papally-episcopally) is in reference to the ordinary magisterium, which he expounds upon here:

Yes, it was one of Peters’ blog posts I was citing, and specifically the distinction between the two types of assent that are required.

This makes it seem to me that his language is about things that we have to believe , like faith believe. But religious assent is not about things we have to believe like that, so I don’t know how to understand what he says. Likely my own lack of understanding is coming into play here.

In sections 891 and 892 the catechism defines the types of assent required for doctrines of the extraordinary magisterium (“obedience of faith”) and of the ordinary magisterium (“religious assent”).

The two forms of assent are of course based on the origin of the doctrine. The question I raised was whether either type of assent was required of us in regard to the rewriting of 2267. My response was that neither applies because that section represents a teaching neither of the extraordinary nor the ordinary magisterium, and I cited Peters in support of that position.

 

[PJM]

No

God Bless you

 

[bobperk]

Well, let’s be honest. The USCCB will be more likely to crack down and verbally chastise a Catholic politician or judge who still supports the death penalty, or one who supports strong border controls. But they will shy away from correcting politicians who advocate for abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, gender ideology, etc.

 

[Pug]

Thank you Ender. Your pointing me to those CCC pasages and making me read them helped me focus. I went back and read Peters’ column.

Here is Peters himself (I bolded what I am referring to):

In light of the foregoing, then, it is easier to see why the present formulation of Canon 752 seems wanting: its language appears (I say appears, because scholars are divided over the meaning and implications of Canon 752) to regard as possible the obligation of “religious assent” being owed to a single, undoubtedly non-infallible, purely papal, no-matter-how-unprecedented, assertion regarding faith and morals. I, for one, frankly doubt that is what the Church meant to say although I grant that seems to be how her new law presently reads.

So, if I am understanding Peters correctly, he thinks the law in its wording says that we might be owing religious assent to a single non-infallible assertion, but that the wording seems bad and needs to be changed because that is not really what the Church likely meant to write down with those words.

I too think the wording reads that way, so I agree on that score.

 

[Ender]

Thank you Ender. Your pointing me to those CCC pasages and making me read them helped me focus. I went back and read Peters’ column.

Here is Peters himself (I bolded what I am referring to):

In light of the foregoing, then, it is easier to see why the present formulation of Canon 752 seems wanting: its language appears (I say appears, because scholars are divided over the meaning and implications of Canon 752) to regard as possible the obligation of “religious assent” being owed to a single, undoubtedly non-infallible, purely papal, no-matter-how-unprecedented, assertion regarding faith and morals. I, for one, frankly doubt that is what the Church meant to say although I grant that seems to be how her new law presently reads.

Separate from my disagreement about the church’s position on capital punishment is my concern with what principles may be compromised in the attempt to justify banning it. Take Peters’ comments: do we really want to believe that right and wrong is nothing more than whatever the current pope says it is? If we take that route don’t we risk their comments being understood as little more than executive orders, which one president (pope) can issue and the next can rescind? That’s not a stable moral platform.

What about our understanding of punishment itself? As long as 2266 is unchanged it would seem the old doctrines still hold, but the new 2267 seems clearly incompatible with it. The new 2267 essentially dismisses everything the church has written on the subject for her first (at least) 1950 years. If we can dismiss the virtually unanimous position of the Fathers, Doctors, theologians, and previous popes on this issue, are we not free to dismiss their position on other issues? Is not everything “reformable”?

 

[Pug]

Take Peters’ comments: do we really want to believe that right and wrong is nothing more than whatever the current pope says it is?

I don’t think it would work that way. If I assent to what pope number 1 says and then pope number 2 says the opposite and then pope number 3 says something else, then at that point no assent is due because it is clear that Catholics can disagree on the point in question and that I had previously failed to note that fact. Well, either that or I am too confused to understand what the teaching says, so instead I have to let it go, since I can’t assent to something which I am unable to formulate or state. If I am forced at that point to make a moral decision, I’ll make it using various guidelines for decisions when one lacks pertinent info. (Obviously I will also take reasonable steps to remedy my ignorance). I don’t really expect Church teaching to tell me how to go on in every situation.

IF they are not going back and forth like a ping-pong ball, but instead making an orderly progression of better integration with or responsiveness to basic principles, then it would be reasonable to go with the most recent data point. It would appear that the information is the best available to use for decision making.

 

[Pug]

What about our understanding of punishment itself? As long as 2266 is unchanged it would seem the old doctrines still hold

Eh, I’m not so sure. This brouhaha has made me look again at something I read in moral theology and Aquinas. Aquinas (summa, second, second, q64, a7) allowed (to my knowledge) that there was a difference between the State and us peons:

…it is not lawful for a man to intend killing a man in self-defense, except for such as have public authority…

The state could intend to kill, but we can’t. I can’t really detect this difference in the CCC clearly, if at all.

2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life…
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect…

Is not everything “reformable”?

No, I don’t think it can be so. So whatever this thing is, it is not that. We have to find a way to see it as other than that.

 

[Ender]

The state could intend to kill, but we can’t. I can’t really detect this difference in the CCC clearly, if at all.

This has actually been something the church has taught for centuries, going (continuously) back at least to Augustine. In a recent pair of articles, John Finnis (Notre Dame) specifically addressed this point:

…this part of Aquinas’s teaching, long accepted in the tradition, is implicitly but unambiguously rejected by the Catechism .

As I said, banning capital punishment involves altering quite a number of existing doctrines, this being merely one of them.

So whatever this thing is, it is not that. We have to find a way to see it as other than that.

It is ironic that one of the standard arguments used to justify banning capital punishment is that such a reversal is permissible because we’ve seen reversals in the past (slavery, usury…). If the church’s position on capital punishment is reversed then this will become the quintessential argument for everyone who wants to see any other doctrine reversed. If the doctrines on capital punishment have not been infallibly taught it is difficult to imagine what that designation would apply to.

If this doctrine “develops” to the point that what was moral yesterday is immoral today then I see no other way to view the change than open season on every other doctrine the church teaches. Even after it was officially proclaimed to have been infallibly taught by the church there are still people who can seriously push for the ordination of women. If capital punishment is abandoned there are no arguments that other doctrines cannot be reversed as well.

“There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception, and direct abortion. Such, too, is the Catholic doctrine which defends the imposition of the death penalty.” (Fr John Hardon)

You may well disagree with Fr. Hardon’s opinion here, but there is no disputing the point that the doctrine on capital punishment is so ancient and well established that no doctrine that has itself not been defined as infallible could be consider settled if this one is tossed out. That is a real concern.

 

[Pug]

I agree that capital punishment seems ancient and settled compared to many things.

Do you think this capital punishment thing could be part of a lessening of the idea of “punishment” having any kind of relevance at all? Look at how the average Catholic describes hell these days compared to the saints. It is almost like we cannot any longer describe hell as justice or as punishment, and we are quite squeamish about the effects of original sin on infants. Is retribution still an idea that moves people?

Not permanent open season. Perhaps this is one of those large swings that later right themselves with a renewal 500 years later. Like we lose our full connection with a concept and then later react and bring it back with more richness to the top of our minds.

I see how they got to where they got with usury. There are principles and circumstances helping us assess a situation. The same principles applied to different circumstances can result in a different assessment. I suppose this could be happening with the death penalty, that the underlying principles are unchanged, but the circumstances where we are trying to apply them are different. I don’t know.