Has teaching on the death penalty officially been changed?

[pnewton]

Are you saying that capital punishment is now declared to be intrinsically evil? Is that what “inadmissible” means?

No, and no. It is inadmissible today. It was admissible during the time of the Israelites, the Middle Ages, the Roman Empire, etc.

FYI - This is not me making this distinction. That would be Pope Francis. He is the one teaching this.

 

[Ender]

No, and no. It is inadmissible today. It was admissible during the time of the Israelites, the Middle Ages, the Roman Empire, etc.

If it is “inadmissible” today but not in the past that can only be because conditions have changed, and the claim of inadmissibility can stem only from a personal evaluation of those conditions. This cannot, in other words, be a doctrinal statement even though it sounds like one. That is, it is not accurate to say capital punishment is inadmissible, but only that, based on his judgment of the conditions, Pope Francis feels capital punishment today is not justifiable. We should at least be clear on this point. This is a judgment, there is no doctrine involved here.

 

[pnewton]

If it is “inadmissible” today but not in the past that can only be because conditions have changed, and the claim of inadmissibility can stem only from a personal evaluation of those conditions. This cannot, in other words, be a doctrinal statement even though it sounds like one.

That is my understanding. There is a doctrine though, that capital punishment is for the protection of society, that has been consistently taught by the last three popes. So it is incorrect to say that there is no doctrine involved. On the other thread that you and a couple of others killed off, it was this doctrine that was being denied.

Sure, if you want to dissent based on the sentence before “consequentially,” that would not be doctrinal dissent, but more like disagreement with the Pope’s directive, based on your opinion of the state of criminal justice today.

 

[Ender]

There is a doctrine though, that capital punishment is for the protection of society, that has been consistently taught by the last three popes. So it is incorrect to say that there is no doctrine involved. On the other thread that you and a couple of others killed off, it was this doctrine that was being denied.

I deny that this is the doctrine of the church today, and I deny that either of the two previous popes ever taught it. I acknowledge that (this interpretation of) 2267 contradicts 2266, but inasmuch as 2266 is unchanged I see no reason not to accept what it says:

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

Redressing the disorder caused by a previous offense cannot be done by preventing new ones. The primary objective of punishment is not protection, it is justice - retributive justice. That is the doctrine the church has always taught, and it is unchanged today.

 

[pnewton]

I deny that this is the doctrine of the church today, and I deny that either of the two previous popes ever taught it.

I know you do. You have always made that clear. Your quote is not about the death penalty but about punishment in general. It is not about the death penalty. You can’t apply something about paying back money stolen to taking a life.

I think the teaching is clear. Deny all you want.

 

[Ender]

I know you do. You have always made that clear. Your quote is not about the death penalty but about punishment in general. It is not about the death penalty. You can’t apply something about paying back money stolen to taking a life.

The death penalty, like imprisonment, and fines, is a punishment, so everything that pertains to punishment in general pertains also to all forms of punishment. The primary objective of all punishment is the same: to redress the disorder caused by a previous crime. When we sentence someone to LWOP what is the primary objective of that punishment? Is it to protect ourselves, or is it, as the catechism states, to redress a disorder?

The only way one can accept your interpretation of 2267 is by rejecting what was just said in 2266.

I think the teaching is clear. Deny all you want.

If things are so clear to you perhaps you can explain 2266, and tell us what is the primary objective of punishment.

 

[Learner1969]

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...h_doc_20180801_catechismo-penadimorte_en.html

 

[Ender]

Here is the new 2267

1. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

It has been argued that capital punishment is for the protection of society, and that what makes it “inadmissible” is that it is no longer needed for that purpose. This - it is claimed - is the significance of the word “consequently” in the last paragraph, but that seems extremely unlikely.

The last paragraph claims that “in the light of the Gospel” the death penalty is “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” Are we to believe that the death penalty attacks the dignity of the person only when it is unnecessary for the safety of society, but that it is somehow not an attack if we determine we need it to protect ourselves?

If the Gospel finds that the death penalty really is an attack on a person’s dignity, it is an attack in all circumstances, and not just in those cases where it is deemed necessary for security. But if it is in fact an attack on man’s dignity, then how can it ever be justified?, and if it cannot be justified then the condition of a societies penal system are irrelevant. It is therefore inadmissible whether it provides protection or not.

That is, the sole exception (protection of society) JPII recognized is now closed. Capital punishment is de facto intrinsically evil, even though that will almost surely cannot ever be explicitly stated.