Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment

[LongingSoul]

There are Traditions and there are traditions. The church’s teaching on capital punishment is in the former category, headscarves the latter. The latter can be overthrown, the former cannot. I’ve said before that most of the church’s infallible doctrines are so not because they are declared to be but because of how they are taught. The doctrine against women priests, for example, was never declared infallible. Nonetheless, as Cardinal Ratzinger explained, it was infallible because:* it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2).* (Responsum ad Propositum Dubium)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html
This characterization seems equally true of the teaching on capital punishment.

Ender

Why does that ‘seem equally true’? The Church has not ordained any women of late yet in contrast the Church has called forcefully and consistently for abolition of the death penalty. To me that obviously signifies that the ‘traditions’ are of nothing like the same caliber!

 

[CrossofChrist]

Why does that ‘seem equally true’? The Church has not ordained any women of late yet in contrast the Church has called forcefully and consistently for abolition of the death penalty. To me that obviously signifies that the ‘traditions’ are of nothing like the same caliber!

The teaching about capital punishment definitely seems to be infallible. Meaning there is nothing per se wrong with its use, if it is the best way to defend human lives (i.e best way to serve the common good).

The question is, should we use it in our own day and age?

 

[graciew]

It is not possible for people with different religious beliefs to reach agreement on issues where their doctrines are different. Within a religion, however, agreement should be possible, so while Catholics may disagree with Buddhists and Baptists they ought to be able to agree with one another.

Where the disagreements are practical, as in “Is this a good idea?” it is quite possible for a Catholic to agree with a Baptist even while disagreeing with another Catholic. In prudential matters the church has no specific positions so individuals are free (and obligated) to come to their own conclusions.

Ender

Ender,I am not getting into the CCC,I am engaged in another aspect of it all. The one you explained above.
I was thinking as I read your answer,that even Israel and Palestine made a cease fire at the word " humanitarian". Well…reluctantly,but they did. And the Pope mentioned humanitarian reasons.
I find this common ground. I am not twisting your arm…forget that please.Only trying to find common ground among nations and wondering if " do not kill" plainly,may be a lower common denominator so as to start speaking. And " humanitarian" sounds equal or almost to every nation.
The world is a mess. And the Pope is a Head of State too.
What do you think?

 

[CrossofChrist]

That is what Cardinal Ratzinger said. But Father Sullivan disagrees.

So? Their positions don’t carry equal authority.

Not to mention that, to clear up any potential ambiguity, JPII definitively settled the issue.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

(JPII)

The statement means that speculation about whether or not women’s ordination was theoretically possible is no longer acceptable, and it clarifies that yes, the Church’s opposition to women’s ordination was because of adherence to Tradition (divine revelation) and not because of some other tradition (lower case “t”).

 

[Tomdstone]

So? Their positions don’t carry equal authority.

Not to mention that, to clear up any potential ambiguity, JPII definitively settled the issue.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

(JPII)

The statement means that speculation about whether or not women’s ordination was theoretically possible is no longer acceptable, and it clarifies that yes, the Church’s opposition to women’s ordination was because of adherence to Tradition (divine revelation) and not because of some other tradition (lower case “t”).

Father Sullivan disagrees that the statement of JPII was infallible.

 

[Ender]

How are you able to explain the Churchs complete silence over the last 2000 years when nations or States have abolished the death penalty from general law? How do you explain Vatican city abolishing the death penalty from its criminal law books without any protest from the college of Cardinals?

It requires no explanation.

If a death penalty is the only just punishment for some crimes, why did it not present a conundrum to the Magisterium when a Christian country abolished it?

Please, at least *try *to understand the distinction between a rule and exceptions to the rule. Circumstances alter all cases. Even you cite Aquinas’ comments that there are times when capital punishment ought not be used. He was giving an example of an exception to the rule. No one, least of all me, has insisted that capital punishment should be used in each and ever case of murder.

Why did the local Churchs in fact help counsel those lay Catholics and citizens that the death penalty is not a divine command but a natural and human law response to defense of society in pursuit of justice?

You’re just making this stuff up as you go along. Unless you live in a very small town you can’t know what local churches are doing where you live, let alone what they are doing elsewhere. This assertion is just silly.

If there is no just cause for abolishing the death penalty as a punishment, why has the Church been so silent in the face of all these instances of abolition over 2000 years?

There have actually been very few instance over those 2000 years where a society has tried to ban capital punishment, and in those cases where attempts were made to ban it based on doctrinal considerations the church did step in…and treated it as heresy.

Ender

 

[Ender]

The principle of double effect would apply. If the action is morally acceptable then:1. the action must be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent.
2. the bad result not be directly intended
3. the good result must not be a direct causal result of the bad result
4. the good result must be “proportionate to” the bad result.
#4 would objectively be the problem.

Understand that “the good result” here means the expected result, not the actual result. An action done with due care that turns out horribly wrong is not sinful.

Good. Then hopefully 2267 poses no doctrinal problems for you.

Since it is prudential and not doctrinal there are no doctrinal issues involved.

Sin is by nature an affront on human dignity.
For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man (Gaudium et Spes 16)

By that definition, capital punishment cannot be an affront to human dignity since it is not sinful to use it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Why does that ‘seem equally true’? The Church has not ordained any women of late yet in contrast the Church has called forcefully and consistently for abolition of the death penalty. To me that obviously signifies that the ‘traditions’ are of nothing like the same caliber!

The nature of the teachings throughout the history of the church are the same. Both the prohibition against women priests and the recognition that capital punishment is licit meet the conditions for an infallible teaching described in Lumen Gentium.But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.
Again, this is not just my personal opinion.*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)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Ender,I am not getting into the CCC,I am engaged in another aspect of it all. The one you explained above.
I was thinking as I read your answer,that even Israel and Palestine made a cease fire at the word " humanitarian". Well…reluctantly,but they did. And the Pope mentioned humanitarian reasons.
I find this common ground. I am not twisting your arm…forget that please.Only trying to find common ground among nations and wondering if " do not kill" plainly,may be a lower common denominator so as to start speaking. And " humanitarian" sounds equal or almost to every nation.
The world is a mess. And the Pope is a Head of State too.
What do you think?

Believing that capital punishment causes more problems than it solves, that overall its use is harmful, is a valid reason to oppose it. So long as the opposition remains practical and not moral I have no objection.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

Father Sullivan disagrees that the statement of JPII was infallible.

So? We’ve had two Popes who have said that was definitive. It’s the Magisterium that defines the doctrines of the Church.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Understand that “the good result” here means the expected result, not the actual result. An action done with due care that turns out horribly wrong is not sinful.

That’s from a subjective aspect. In the grand scheme of things what they did would objectively be wrong–had they known the outcome they wouldn’t have done it.

Since it is prudential and not doctrinal there are no doctrinal issues involved.

So you agree with the beginning of 2267, which isn’t prudential?

By that definition, capital punishment cannot be an affront to human dignity since it is not sinful to use it.

There could be a situation where objectively (from God’s pov) it would be wrong, and therefore sinful, but we can’t know that since our perspective on earth is limited. So as long as we use our prudence in figuring out what would be best for the common good, we should be fine.

 

[LongingSoul]

The nature of the teachings throughout the history of the church are the same. Both the prohibition against women priests and the recognition that capital punishment is licit meet the conditions for an infallible teaching described in Lumen Gentium.But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.
Again, this is not just my personal opinion.*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)
Ender

‘Defends the imposition of the death penalty’ does not mean ‘commands the death penalty as the only just punishment for a crime, withheld at the expense of justice.’

The Church has always defended the right of the State to use capital punishment, to engage in just war and killing in individual self defense but all remain subject to moral accountability. Killing is always a bad thing. It is never a good thing. Those acts have no sacred meaning and are not ‘ordained’ in any way to bring about a divine effect.

The all male Priesthood on the other hand is a sacred ordination of Priestly powers. It is not a human institution and warrants a sacramental place in the life of the Church. When a Priest officiates a sacrament, the act is holy and divine. The Priesthood is a divine institution and their sacramental acts bring communion with God. The State is a human institution and its acts are directly behoved by the common good. The unchanging truth is that capital punishment along with just war and individual self defense are *defendable as serving the human good… the common good. * Sacraments on the other hand are positively commanded as having divine meaning and divine efficacy.

The State and the act of capital punishment are in no way comparable to the Priesthood and the sacraments.

 

[dudleysharp]

Pope Francis: How Wrong on the Death Penalty?

In a speech to the International Association of Penal Law (1), Pope Francis denounced the death penalty and life imprisonment, continuing the Church pattern of errors in criminal justice matters.

1. Pope Francis condemned “a ’ penal populism’ that promises to solve society’s problems by punishing crime instead of pursuing social justice.”

Do any leaders say that “we must solve society’s problems by punishing crime instead of pursuing social justice.”?

Of course not. I can see no reason why the Pope would have said this…

1. Pope Francis says, “It is impossible to imagine that states today cannot make use of another means than capital punishment to defend peoples’ lives from an unjust aggressor”.

“Impossible to imagine” is poor reasoning, nor does it have any biblical, theological or traditional support.

On this serious topic, reality, not imagination, should be the rational guide.

The issues are what represents justice and how can we best protect the innocent from unjust aggressors, within the reality of man’s criminal justice systems.

Would anyone say: “It is ‘impossible to imagine’ that the Church would not protect innocents from sexual predator priests.”

Of course not. Deal with reality.

Reality says that the death penalty protects innocents to a greater degree than does LWOP (2) and both protect innocents better than lesser sanctions. (2).

“Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.” (CCC 2265). Clearly, the death penalty and LWOP do that better than any other sanctions.

The Pope’s suggestion is to spare more violent criminals, putting their eternal souls more at risk, and to sacrifice more innocents.

1. Neither the last 3 Popes, nor Evangelium Vitae nor the recent CCC have addressed, or even acknowledged, the huge problems that we have with all criminal justice systems, worldwide (3) - how common it is for criminal justice systems to allow known unjust aggressors, to harm over and over again (3). Very.

Possibly, Pope Francis might consider:

(To paraphrase the Pope) (1)

“All Christians and people of good will are thus called today to show their love and support for those innocents harmed by known violent unjust aggressors and out of respect for the human dignity of those innocent persons, who have been deprived of their safety, their lives and/or their property, to make sure that it will be “impossible to imagine” not protecting those innocents to a higher degree than we have in the past and, thereby preventing unjust aggressors from harming, even, more in the future, not only causing more harm to innocents, but also more harm to those unjust aggressors’ eternal future.”

1. The Pope may have defined why the last 3 Popes have been such a disaster on criminal justice issues.

Pope Francis calls sanctioned guilty criminals “sacrificial victims", a true insult to actual innocent crime victims, a stunning moral error, with the last four decades of Church horrors staring him in the face.

Hard to comprehend.

Footnotes

1. Pope Francis calls for abolishing death penalty and life imprisonment, 10/27/2014,
   vassallomalta.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/pope-francis-calls-for-abolishing-death-penalty-and-life-imprisonment
2. The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter? A Review of All Innocence Issues
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
3. Catechism & State Protection
   prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2014/10/catechism-state-protection.html

 

[LongingSoul]

Originally Posted by LongingSoul
How are you able to explain the Churchs complete silence over the last 2000 years when nations or States have abolished the death penalty from general law? How do you explain Vatican city abolishing the death penalty from its criminal law books without any protest from the college of Cardinals?

Do you think if some countries or states started to ordain women that the Church would remain silent?

If a death penalty is the only just punishment for some crimes, why did it not present a conundrum to the Magisterium when a Christian country abolished it?

Please, at least *try *to understand the distinction between a rule and exceptions to the rule. Circumstances alter all cases. Even you cite Aquinas’ comments that there are times when capital punishment ought not be used. He was giving an example of an exception to the rule. No one, least of all me, has insisted that capital punishment should be used in each and ever case of murder.

I can only chuckle at your indignant accusations of ‘uncharitability’ and complete obliviousness to your own condescending attitude of dismissal toward others.

In Catholic teaching the rule is ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Capital punishment represents the ‘exception’ to the rule and only if the common good behoves such a defensive measure in penal justice. The whole topic is dealt with in the context of the chapter “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”… under Article 5 “The Fifth Commandment” (Thou shalt not kill)… subheading 1. “Respect for Life”.

It sits there representing acts which by defense of the self or the common good, may justify a lethal measure.

Why did the local Churchs in fact help counsel those lay Catholics and citizens that the death penalty is not a divine command but a natural and human law response to defense of society in pursuit of justice?

You’re just making this stuff up as you go along. Unless you live in a very small town you can’t know what local churches are doing where you live, let alone what they are doing elsewhere. This assertion is just silly.

I live in Australia in Queensland where capital punishment was abolished nearly a century ago. As I’ve posted a number of times before, I have an article published in the Catholic newspaper at the time to explain to Catholics the Churchs position. I relish the opportunity to repost it.

**"Is the Catholic Church opposed to capital punishment?

This question, thus generally put, must be answered by a decided no. Among the words spoken by God to Noe we find also the following: ‘Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed; for man was made to the image of God’ (Gen. ix., 6). In former centuries this was almost considered a divine law. Capital punishment was practised by all Catholic Governments, including the temporal Government of the Popes., when they still had the Papal States. On the other hand, the Church has never opposed the abolition of capital punishment, because she leaves it entirely to the secular authorities to see what penalties shall be inflicted on evil-doers. If in times past the death penalty was resorted to far more frequently than now, we think this was greatly caused by the inefficiency of the police system. Since it was difficult to arrest highway robbers, firebugs, etc., those that were actually caught were punished the more drastically. Whether fewer, such criminals now escape arrest and full punishment than formerly, especially if they are rich, may be questioned. But the fact remains that what we now call the police system was extremely primitive in the days of old. Robbery on a grand scale, formerly conducted by a liberal use of physical violence, is now carried on in a more refined manner, though the effect is the same. It is left to the secular authorities to determine whether capital punishment is to be extended to other crimes beside actual murder, or is to be abolished altogether. So much seems to be sure, that the number of those has not died out who will be deterred from committing great crimes by nothing short of death."**

Freeman’s Journal (Sydney, NSW : 1850 – 1932) (Later to become the Catholic Weekly still being printed today)
trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/123253640

So “in former centuries this was almost considered a divine law” and its perfectly understandable that our ancestors not equipped with a sophisticated penal justice machine, might take capital punishment for granted as divinely commanded since it needed to be defended as an only option for the common good. Today, with our advances in civil capability and natural theological enlightenment that time affords, we can more clearly distinguish capital punishments meaning for the common good. No contradiction there at all. Our ancestors also revered fire as a necessary means for cooking their food. Fire is no longer the only option and there are safer more efficient options for achieving this important goal. It doesn’t mean that our ancestors were stupid. That’s just the nature of time and progress.

 

[LongingSoul]

If there is no just cause for abolishing the death penalty as a punishment, why has the Church been so silent in the face of all these instances of abolition over 2000 years?

There have actually been very few instance over those 2000 years where a society has tried to ban capital punishment, and in those cases where attempts were made to ban it based on doctrinal considerations the church did step in…and treated it as heresy.

Ender

Again twilight zone stuff. The majority of the world has abolished the death penalty without a single word from the Church. It’s been abolished because it is unnecessary and unworthy of justice and the common good. That is doctrinal. If the State was aware of its negative effect on society but continued to retain such a lethal measure as being ‘our right’… that is a gross misrepresentation of the doctrine. The State is answerable to the common good and in that capacity, represents obedience to God. It can never dismiss the common good as the highest human law. That is why abortion and euthanasia will eventually be outlawed by the State. Through the common good, men are guaranteed to recognise God.

Matthew 25:34-46

** “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”**

 

[LongingSoul]

Pope Francis: How Wrong on the Death Penalty?

In a speech to the International Association of Penal Law (1), Pope Francis denounced the death penalty and life imprisonment, continuing the Church pattern of errors in criminal justice matters.

1. Pope Francis condemned “a ’ penal populism’ that promises to solve society’s problems by punishing crime instead of pursuing social justice.”

Do any leaders say that “we must solve society’s problems by punishing crime instead of pursuing social justice.”?

Of course not. I can see no reason why the Pope would have said this…

Your not being Catholic or believing in Papal authority, I can understand why you don’t value the teachings of the Church or their inspiration by the Holy Spirit. But as Catholics we behold the Church as the Body of Christ. When Jesus began to preach things that seemed to contradict the word of God, He was rejected outright by some in the Temple. Others were able to hear the truth He spoke without needing Him to conform to their own concept of Gods will.

So it is with Catholic teaching. It is not deemed either true or false depending on our personal concept of true or false. We don’t automatically reject something handed onto us for our edification based on whether it conforms to our studious intellects and limited concepts of Truth.

That aspect only presents a dilemma to those outside the Church (and some inside the Church), who can’t fully accept Papal authority.

1. Pope Francis says, “It is impossible to imagine that states today cannot make use of another means than capital punishment to defend peoples’ lives from an unjust aggressor”.

“Impossible to imagine” is poor reasoning, nor does it have any biblical, theological or traditional support.

On this serious topic, reality, not imagination, should be the rational guide.

The issues are what represents justice and how can we best protect the innocent from unjust aggressors, within the reality of man’s criminal justice systems.

Would anyone say: “It is ‘impossible to imagine’ that the Church would not protect innocents from sexual predator priests.”

Of course not. Deal with reality.

Reality says that the death penalty protects innocents to a greater degree than does LWOP (2) and both protect innocents better than lesser sanctions. (2).

“Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.” (CCC 2265). Clearly, the death penalty and LWOP do that better than any other sanctions.

The Pope’s suggestion is to spare more violent criminals, putting their eternal souls more at risk, and to sacrifice more innocents.

1. Neither the last 3 Popes, nor Evangelium Vitae nor the recent CCC have addressed, or even acknowledged, the huge problems that we have with all criminal justice systems, worldwide (3) - how common it is for criminal justice systems to allow known unjust aggressors, to harm over and over again (3). Very.

Possibly, Pope Francis might consider:

(To paraphrase the Pope) (1)

“All Christians and people of good will are thus called today to show their love and support for those innocents harmed by known violent unjust aggressors and out of respect for the human dignity of those innocent persons, who have been deprived of their safety, their lives and/or their property, to make sure that it will be “impossible to imagine” not protecting those innocents to a higher degree than we have in the past and, thereby preventing unjust aggressors from harming, even, more in the future, not only causing more harm to innocents, but also more harm to those unjust aggressors’ eternal future.”

1. The Pope may have defined why the last 3 Popes have been such a disaster on criminal justice issues.

Pope Francis calls sanctioned guilty criminals “sacrificial victims", a true insult to actual innocent crime victims, a stunning moral error, with the last four decades of Church horrors staring him in the face.

Hard to comprehend.

‘Reality’ to an atheist or pagan is limited to how a thing affects the self or the immediate tribe, but ‘reality’ to Christians is conceived through the lens of mankind as a family. In a family justice and mercy are very personal in that they relate to not just how individuals are affected in the commission of a crime… but how the family is damaged by that act. When parents punish a child, they are not primarily ‘teaching it a lesson’, they are caring about that child’s welfare and its relationships with others. They want to know more about why a sin or crime happened and how they can redress the disorder by not just punishment, but resolving any family cultural attitudes and behaviours that have contributed to the child’s deviation.

You could in that sense say that in families, the social justice aspect takes higher priority than the effects of punishment on the person. As a society we have moved on from the idea of indiscriminate, detached punishments that don’t take into account the toxic influences of the culture in causing sin and crime. That is more reflective of family dynamics than a dynamic based on divisions.

 

[graciew]

Believing that capital punishment causes more problems than it solves, that overall its use is harmful, is a valid reason to oppose it. So long as the opposition remains practical and not moral I have no objection.

Ender

Thank you for your patience,Ender.
I always learn much with you all.

 

[Ender]

That’s from a subjective aspect. In the grand scheme of things what they did would objectively be wrong–had they known the outcome they wouldn’t have done it.

No, something does not become wrong (sinful) because it turns out badly in the end. If the intent was good and due caution was exercised then no matter what happens the action was moral. Unless we’re dealing with something intrinsically evil, the morality of an act is essentially determined by our intent. An action is good or bad at the time it is committed; it cannot change its nature afterwards as we learn the full extent of the consequences.

So you agree with the beginning of 2267, which isn’t prudential?

True, the first sentence in 2267 is not prudential; it is a statement regarding a fact…and it appears to be factually incorrect.

Ender

 

[Ender]

‘Defends the imposition of the death penalty’ does not mean ‘commands the death penalty as the only just punishment for a crime, withheld at the expense of justice.’

True, but since I have explicitly rejected such a view this statement is not relevant to anything at all.

The Church has always defended the right of the State to use capital punishment…

And this is what makes the teaching infallible - that the church has always taught it that way. It has always and everywhere been maintained by the popes and bishops of the church.

The all male Priesthood on the other hand is a sacred ordination of Priestly powers. It is not a human institution and warrants a sacramental place in the life of the Church.

The arguments behind the doctrines are different, but the reason both doctrines are (likely) infallible is the same: they have been unchanged from the beginning as taught by the Ordinary Magisterium. I say likely because, while the prohibition against women priests has been recognized as infallible, the teaching on capital punishment has not.

The State and the act of capital punishment are in no way comparable to the Priesthood and the sacraments.

That wasn’t the argument; you’re stuck on a different idea. This particular point was about why some doctrines are infallible even if they are not explicitly declared to be so.

Ender

 

[CrossofChrist]

No, something does not become wrong (sinful) because it turns out badly in the end. If the intent was good and due caution was exercised then no matter what happens the action was moral. Unless we’re dealing with something intrinsically evil, the morality of an act is essentially determined by our intent. An action is good or bad at the time it is committed; it cannot change its nature afterwards as we learn the full extent of the consequences.

It appears I lose here.

CCC 1754: Circumstances (including consequences) of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves

Nonetheless, if using prudence person A thinks performing capital punishment in a given moment wouldn’t contribute to the common good, then it would be contrary to human dignity for person A to support its use in that instance. So that IMO explains the use of “human dignity” in 2267.

True, the first sentence in 2267 is not prudential; it is a statement regarding a fact…and it appears to be factually incorrect.

Only if you try to read it that way.