"Inserting a Prudential Judgement into the Catechism"

[timeandeternity]

I was just reading Keating’s letter on the death penalty, and had some questions about the section with the same title as this post. (Here’s the letter for reference: catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp)
So, how in the world do we know when something in the Catechism is Catholic doctrine, and when something is a “prudential judgment?” If this is the only case where JPII inserted a prudential judgment, why here? Why not in other places where he had personal opinions? And if it’s in the Catechism, won’t most people just assume it’s doctrine? Why isn’t there a note saying, “This section is the prudential judgment of John Paul II, and should not be treated as Catholic doctrine”? And last but not least, why would a denial of retribution as a legitimate purpose of capital punishment be contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church?
Sorry about all the questions, but I’m totally confused about this.

 

[Abu]

Timeandeternity
And if it’s in the Catechism, won’t most people just assume it’s doctrine? Why isn’t there a note saying, “This section is the prudential judgment of John Paul II, and should not be treated as Catholic doctrine”? And last but not least, why would a denial of retribution as a legitimate purpose of capital punishment be contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church? ……I’m totally confused about this.

Why totally confused?

The CCC #2266 plainly states that the State has the right and duty to punish by the death penalty in case of extreme gravity, and #2267 states that if bloodless means are sufficient to protect public order and defend human lives the State should limit itself to such means.

Thus, very clearly, the State has the right and duty to decide when and whether the death penalty should be exercised. This will vary with the prevailing culture, the respect for human life in that culture and depends on the level of civilization in a State.

Compare this with abortion in #2270 where every human life must be protected from the moment of conception, and direct abortion is gravely contrary to the moral law; with contraception in #2370 where every such action is “intrinsically evil”. The difference is clear.

It is vital for Catholics to study and learn the meaning of dogma, doctrine, the scope and meaning of papal infallibility, and that of Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Ender]

I was just reading Keating’s letter on the death penalty, and had some questions about the section with the same title as this post. (Here’s the letter for reference: catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp)
So, how in the world do we know when something in the Catechism is Catholic doctrine, and when something is a “prudential judgment?” If this is the only case where JPII inserted a prudential judgment, why here? Why not in other places where he had personal opinions? And if it’s in the Catechism, won’t most people just assume it’s doctrine? Why isn’t there a note saying, “This section is the prudential judgment of John Paul II, and should not be treated as Catholic doctrine”? And last but not least, why would a denial of retribution as a legitimate purpose of capital punishment be contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church?
Sorry about all the questions, but I’m totally confused about this.

There has been a lot of discussion about that section of the Catechism and whether or not it is prudential. Keating is by no means alone in regarding it as such, but he does note that it is probably the only prudential judgment in there:

*Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) *

I think there is simply no doubt that at least some of 2267 is opinion. We may disagree on how much of it is opinion but there is no credible argument that the third statement, which estimates the capabilities of modern penal systems, is a theological position rather than a prudential calculation.

Regarding the traditional teaching of the Church on the retributive nature of punishment:

*If the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millennia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture (notably in Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:1-4). *(Dulles)

The Church has always taught, and does so today, that retribution is the primary objective of punishment. She has also supported, and still does today, the right of the State to apply the death penalty in appropriate circumstances. As Dulles said, this is the traditional teaching of the Church.

Ender

 

[Listener]

So, I guess that if you disagree with something in the Catechism, you can say it was in there because of “prudential judgment.” Then you can call the things you agree with “doctrine.” How convenient!

 

[Abu]

Listener
So, I guess that if you disagree with something in the Catechism, you can say it was in there because of “prudential judgment.” Then you can call the things you agree with “doctrine.” How convenient!

Hardly helpful.
Note that when the Magisterium inserts itself into the prudential order, it is possible “that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies” [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, *Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian (24 May, 1990), #24]. This may be the case when the Magisterium addresses new questions because such pronouncements can contain both “true assertions” as well as others which are “not sure” [ibid.].

CCC #2266 recognises:
1 retribution or the reparation of the disorder caused by the transgression.
2 defense of society against the criminal – preserving public order.
3 rehabilitation or correction of the criminal.

Death Penalty
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on May-22-2007 (EWTN):
"The key point in the Catechism about this matter (a point that seems regularly missed or neglected) is that the Church teaches that it is the responsibility of the legitimate civil authority - and not the responsibility of the Church - to determine if and when resorting to the death penalty is necessary for protecting the common good.

“The Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is “rare, if not virtually nonexistent.” The important point here is that the Pope has not, as he cannot, change the constant and fundamental teaching of the Church on this matter, based as it is on the natural law, namely that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend citizens against the aggressor and to determine if this defense requires the death penalty. What the Pope IS saying is that, in modern society, the modern penal system, along with an intense anti-life culture, can make resorting to the death penalty disproportionate to the threatening aggression. Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a “rare” case arises that warrants the death penalty. It would, by the standards of the natural law, be morally irresponsible to rule out all such possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately. For these reasons, the Church cannot possibly embrace EITHER a totally PRO-capital punishment teaching OR a totally ANTI-capital punishment teaching.” [My underlining].
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=503965&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2008&Author=&Keyword=Capital+Punishment&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=36&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

 

[Ender]

The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society.

I think there is a serious problem with understanding capital punishment as an act of self-defense: it doesn’t meet the conditions specified in the Catechism.

• “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.”* (CCC 2263)

In the case of capital punishment however, the death of the criminal is certainly intended and so it does not meet the criteria necessary for an act with double effect to be valid. The following was written by Kevin L. Flannery S.J. (Professor, Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome):

The Holy Father is obviously invoking the principle of double effect in the passage, for his concern is to deny that the “fatal outcome” is attributable to the self-defender’s intention; accordingly, he cites Part II-II, Question 64, Article 7 of the Summa at this point. Paragraph 56 then begins with the remark, “It is in this context that the question of capital punishment arises.” But this is false, at least historically, for the question was never considered by the Church within that context.

But—and here we return to the interpretive errors of the Catechism —in the case of capital punishment, not even such force is required.

The personal self-defender needs to be forced into performing the lethal action; the soldier, the minister of the judge, and the executioner do not. Since the latter three figures do not necessarily act on the spur of the moment and since, when not so acting, they have various means at their disposal, force (in the sense we have been discussing) cannot be the morally decisive factor. In other words, given their shared context as officers of the law, the principle of double effect as set out by Aquinas cannot apply to them.

2267 is an anomaly in Church teaching on capital punishment and at some point will have to be completely reworked.

Ender