Has teaching on the death penalty officially been changed?

[Ender]

Is retribution still an idea that moves people?

I think this is precisely where the problem lies. If a person does not deserve the punishment he receives then there is no justification for inflicting it, but the question of “desert” seems to have little appeal these days - and I have to say I believe the old version of 2267 contributed to the general unease with the validity of retribution.

 

[Pug]

I think I agree. The old paragraph 2267 seemed to suggest the death penalty as something practiced only for the defense of human lives, and not the common good or justice.

The common good is broader and can include things like supporting marriage or supporting justice or supporting the prisoner to reform himself or supporting respect for the value of the prisoner’s victim. Myself, I tend to think the death penalty would encourage a prisoner to repent and reform before death rather than postponing it forever.

 

[gcshapero]

The teaching on the death penalty has always been regarded as a discipline, not doctrinal or dogmatic – which means it has never been set in stone.

This is a teaching which can be altered according to era and circumstance.

At one point, it was right and good for the death penalty to be implemented. At this point, it doesn’t make sense for it to continue as far as our advancement in the prison system and security.

It is not regarded as intrinsically evil – the word used was inadmissible meaning it is not valid, which is different.

I will say that I personally struggle with this sentiment on some levels, and it is OK if you do, but I don’t think it was wrong. I say this as a very traditional Catholic.

 

[Ender]

The teaching on the death penalty has always been regarded as a discipline, not doctrinal or dogmatic – which means it has never been set in stone.

If it hasn’t been a doctrine it is hard to imagine to what that term applies. What makes you think it is merely a discipline? The same position on capital punishment has been laid out in a half dozen catechisms, and specifically recognized as valid by a half dozen popes.

This is a teaching which can be altered according to era and circumstance.

The application of the death penalty in a particular instance, like the propriety of declaring war, is subject to prudential judgment, but that is different than saying the propriety of war or the death penalty as such depends on circumstances. Morality does not change with time or place.

 

[gcshapero]

You were right to bring up the Just War Theory because this is a great example of something that is recognized as a discipline. It is not a hardline teaching, it is something the Church has brought up as a prudential matter — this is the case for the death penalty.

The earlier popes who supported the death penalty were not in error and their support for it was totally right.

As things like security in prisons have evolved, the need for the death penalty began to reduce. Pope Francis made a judgment (albeit a fallible one) that we’re at a point where it is no longer needed. JPII before him said we were practically already there.

This is why it is not an intrinsic evil — it is merely recognized as inadmissible.

That said, from my understanding, this also means Catholics who still support the death penalty may still do so, it’s just that the Catechism reflex a specific position, but it is not doctrinal. This is why it was worded in this way.

I do understand my fellow traditionalists concerns with it, and I think the timing was odd, but it still makes sense to me.

I’d check out Trent Horn’s podcast on this subject. It was very well explained.

 

[Ender]

You were right to bring up the Just War Theory because this is a great example of something that is recognized as a discipline

“Just war theory” may be a discipline, but the justness of war (in general) is doctrine. As I said, the application of capital punishment in a particular instance requires prudential judgment, but the justness of capital punishment in general is a doctrine. This is what the church has always taught.

As things like security in prisons have evolved, the need for the death penalty began to reduce.

But the “need” for the death penalty has never been determined by whether it provided security. That it provided security has been recognized as a benefit, but that has never been the justification for its use. This may be a common understanding of the previous version of 2267, but it was never a correct one.

 

[gcshapero]

I may very well have it wrong, at least when it comes to the death penalty, because I’ve also heard interesting arguments in how it is a bit more layered than what I am seeing.

I’m open to exploring this more.

Really appreciate the insight, brother.

 

[pnewton]

I think this layering is why the Pope chose to speak directly to the issue, just saying it is no longer admissible. It is ironic that a lot of the same people who have asked for clarity on other issues resent this level of clarity when it is given.

 

[gcshapero]

That’s certainly a whole different issue. I don’t think he is morally capable of holding the office of the pope at this point.

 

[pnewton]

I hardly see how insulting and attacking the Holy Father is appropriate. This topic was shut down once over such stuff.

 

[gcshapero]

I was only responding to your comment. I’m not insulting or attacking him. It’s a genuine comment regarding his recent statements and non-statements. I wouldn’t insult the Holy Father.

To question his moral capability was sincere, not meant to be snarky or arrogant.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe I misunderstood, but “morally incapable” seems to be a judgement of his morality. Did you mean that the office of Pope takes an immoral person?

 

[gcshapero]

Well in regards to the Holy Father, his has been at the very least been making very confusing and questionable decisions and statements.

He has a no-tolerance policy but hasn’t followed it. He has demanded speaking up in the face of injustice but said directly that he won’t say a word on the report and questions about his own actions regarding other bishops’ involvement with abuses.

I wouldn’t insult him because I think the office of the pope deserves our full respect, and I don’t question his theology — it’s his moral decisions that have so many Catholics reeling. That’s what I meant.

I know there have been immoral popes in the past and there will be immoral ones in the future, but anyone as a member of the clergy is supposed to be held to a moral standard, and I’m not sure he is sticking to it.

 

[Ender]

I think this layering is why the Pope chose to speak directly to the issue, just saying it is no longer admissible. It is ironic that a lot of the same people who have asked for clarity on other issues resent this level of clarity when it is given.

That it is clear to you doesn’t actually mean it is in fact clear, as some theological heavyweights have noted:

Thus the main effects of the revision, given its ambiguities and, strictly speaking, unfruitfulness in doctrinal substance, seem likely to be these… (John Finnis, former member of the CDF’s International Theological Commission)

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. (Ed Peters, canon lawyer)

 

[pnewton]

That it is clear to you doesn’t actually mean it…

I do. I do not find the word “inadmissible” ambiguous. If John Finnis and Ed Peters do, they should purchase a dictionary. What I see is disagreement, not lack of understanding.

 

[graciew]

and I’m not sure he is sticking to it.

Neat. So you are not sure and just in case let us spread doubts about him.

Perhaps he knows more and better.
By far. Light years beyond many here. That,I am sure of .

 

[gcshapero]

I was speaking diplomatically.

It does not appear he is. At some point, we’re going to need total clarity on what has been happening with the scandals and it has reached the top office.

I’m not speaking treasonous against the Church. I don’t doubt the office’s is the heirarchy—I’m concerned about individual men who are occupying it. We’re in a pretty big crisis right now. I honestly believe we need a pope who will speak clearly on what is happening and address it for the sake of everyone’s souls or get out of the way.

We still don’t know why the McCarrkck sanctions were dropped and he was promoted.

 

[graciew]

How about a strong shot of honesty?
It is your way or the high way.
Not arguing with the " confused" any more. Not under threat.
Keep the mic. For what it is worth.

 

[gcshapero]

Well certainly keep praying for the Church either way. We are certainly in a time where prayer and fasting is desperately needed.

 

[Ender]

I do. I do not find the word “inadmissible” ambiguous. If John Finnis and Ed Peters do, they should purchase a dictionary. What I see is disagreement, not lack of understanding.

Are you saying that capital punishment is now declared to be intrinsically evil? Is that what “inadmissible” means? Because if it doesn’t mean that then it would be admissible in some circumstances…and clearly not inadmissible. Clarify this point for us.