Pope Francis Changes Catechism to Declare Death Penalty ‘Inadmissible’

  • Thread starter Thread starter exnihilo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
exnihilo said:
How is Pope Francis competent to make this decision?
Click to expand...
If he’s not competent to change the wording in the Catechism, who is? That paragraph was composed by bishops and theologians. It seems to me the pope can change it.

That’s where we differ, though. You seem to see this as a definitive break from what came before—a change in teaching. I don’t see it as a change at all. The Church has always taught that all human beings have innate dignity. There’s nothing “vague” about that.

This is not at all the same as saying women can be priests or two people of the same sex can get married. Both of those have to do with the definition of a sacrament. The death penalty is not a sacrament.

I fail to see how this is any different from the Church’s teaching on slavery. People criticize the Church for not having spoke more strongly against slavery in centuries past. As time has gone by, the Church’s teaching on the matter became stronger and more clear in light—again—of the inherent dignity of the human person. This isn’t much different.
 
He’s not saying the DP is unjust, he’s saying using it violates human dignity

So, consider that maybe we were able to tolerate this violation of an individual’s human dignity until the time that the reason for toleration was mitigated.
 
Joe_5859 said:
If he’s not competent to change the wording in the Catechism, who is? That paragraph was composed by bishops and theologians. It seems to me the pope can change it.
Click to expand...
How is he competent to make prudential decisions about the death penalty throughout the world?
Joe_5859 said:
That’s where we differ, though. You seem to see this as a definitive break from what came before—a change in teaching. I don’t see it as a change at all. The Church has always taught that all human beings have innate dignity. There’s nothing “vague” about that.
Click to expand...
No, I agree the Church has always taught that all human life has value. The issue isn’t with this.
Joe_5859 said:
This is not at all the same as saying women can be priests or two people of the same sex can get married. Both of those have to do with the definition of a sacrament. The death penalty is not a sacrament.
Click to expand...
I agree, but people who don’t have as good an understanding of issues will not realize that. They will see the headline. They will think, with good reason, Church teaching can change.
Joe_5859 said:
I fail to see how this is any different from the Church’s teaching on slavery. People criticize the Church for not having spoke more strongly against slavery in centuries past. As time has gone by, the Church’s teaching on the matter became stronger and more clear in light—again—of the inherent dignity of the human person. This isn’t much different.
Click to expand...
It is like slavery in as much as if the Church says it is always and everywhere wrong then it contradicts itself. The Church doesn’t need to do that in order to express how much these fall short of the ideal.
 
Eh, it’s not a big deal to me. Just War and Self Defense still apply. I can see powerful drug lords, organized crime, and evil politicians being executed. Some people are so powerful that no prison can truly neutralize them. Actually, most of the time they’re above the law so prison isn’t an option.
 
As far as I could tell, it was never about the severity of the crime anyways. It was about public safety. In order to have a just application of the death penalty, it would have to be the only way to guarantee public safety, which basically assumes that the culprit was certain (or near certain) to escape jail, and was equally certain to kill more people once out of jail. It also assumes that the authorities would be powerless to prevent this. As the Catechism said (or at least implied), this scenario was highly unlikely at best, especially in developed countries. Personally, I see the sense in the previous wording, but this affects very few cases so it may turn out OK yet.
 
It was about the severity too. That is why we used to execute for rape and other crimes.
 
MapleLeaf1 said:
As the Catechism said (or at least implied), this scenario was highly unlikely at best, especially in developed countries.
Click to expand...
So you agree with this?
Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is a correct statement and should not be used as a reason to say the death penalty is not needed. Do a search of prisoner killed, prison guard killed, etc.
 
Dogma cannot change, doctrine is dynamic in that it can expand and grow over time, with the guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit.
 
It’s what I like to go by. I understand the change. The Judicial system is certainly not infallible like many would like to think. Plea bargains can be pretty much bribery or can occur for reasons of health because a person can’t fight for example, in court. So a trial that could’ve been won is reduced to a guilty plea. This new doctrine is about time.
 
Last edited:
Joe_5859 said:
effectively saying there are no instances today where it would be allowed.
Click to expand...
Suppose that in the future some country is in the midst of extreme violence and revolution. The government has caught a murdering criminal. They have no place to put him, as the jails will likely be raided by the rebels, and cannot let him go kill more people. This would be an instance the death penalty would be needed.

It could well happen.
 
Last edited:
AZ42 said:
It could well happen.
Click to expand...
And if it ever does, whoever is pope can address it. But Pope Francis isn’t talking about some hypothetical, future post-apocalyptic world. He’s talking about the world as it exists right now.
 
True, but Catechism is designed to a universal guide book for Catholics, not something that merely reflects the current societal conditions. That is not the way the Church has always operated. It is a more reactionary approach, rather than one that takes into account all possibilities. Nothing was wrong with the old way of saying the death penalty should only be used when absolutely necessary.
 
Last edited:
Long before +Francis, there were developments that some found difficult to reconcile. For example, the Catechism declares torture to be “intrinsically evil”, despite the fact that medieval Church authorities, including Rome, permitted torture in judicial settings (with limits such as no maiming). Some here at CAF struggled with this teaching during the last US presidential election as Trump was, in his own words, a fan of going “beyond water boarding”, and thus challenged the plain meaning of the text.
 
Last edited:
In some exceptionally rare cases, there are primitive human tribes out there (thinking of the Sentinelese in India here) with no prison system where the old wording might have applied.

But they’d have no knowledge of the Catechism then, so there isn’t too much of a point.
 
Tis_Bearself . . .
It already changed. The Catechism of Pope Pius X said that we should reject Protestant Bibles with “disgust” . . . .
Click to expand...
What you are alluding to Tis_Bearself would not be considered a “change” in de fide doctrine.

Why?

Because de fide doctrine means faith and morals handed down from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

God bless.

Cathoholic

.
 
Last edited:
exnihilo said:
It brings into question other settled or unsettled issues. I can’t really blame people who think someday the Catholic Church will say women can become priestesses or homosexuals can marry. They can rightly point to this current issue and say teaching can change.
Click to expand...
That is what I was thinking. Already I know of one Catholic college which congratulates alumni and alumnae who enter into same sex marriages. They write articles of congratulations and publish full color photos of their marriage. I don’t know why an official Catholic organization would call their ceremony a marriage, but that is the way it is. And with so many Catholic couples using artificial birth control, would it be possible for the Catholic Church to re-articulate this teaching in new ways which would reflect a modification taking into account the problems of overpopulation such as the shortage of clean drinking water in many parts of the world today.
twf said:
the Catechism declares torture to be “intrinsically evil”, despite the fact that medieval Church authorities, including Rome, permitted torture in judicial settings
Click to expand...
Another example of re-articulation of Catholic teachings in new ways for new times.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
What you are alluding to Tis_Bearself would not be considered a “change” in de fide doctrine.

Why?

Because de fide doctrine means faith and morals handed down from the time of Christ and the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Right, and neither is the change to the death penalty provision a change in the “doctrine”. Because Jesus taught that all human life had dignity and He forgave the guy who was getting capital punishment right alongside him.

God bless
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Right, and neither is the change to the death penalty provision a change in the “doctrine”. Because Jesus taught that all human life had dignity and He forgave the guy who was getting capital punishment right alongside him.
Click to expand...
That’s not really a good argument for changing the Church’s teaching on the death penalty. Even the good thief knew that both of them deserved their punishment.

Luke 23: [39] And one of those robbers who were hanged, blasphemed him, saying: If thou be Christ, save thyself and us. [40] But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?

[41] And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. [42] And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom. [43] And Jesus said to him: Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Jesus forgave the good thief because he asked for forgiveness, but even the thief admitted that he was on that cross because, by doing what he had done, he justly deserved his punishment.

I think this change in the CCC is wrong, because it’s muddying the waters of what constitutes true justice. I also agree with others who have suggested that it also opens the door to even more changes in the future, because it sets a precedent that doctrine really can change, which is a very slippery slope.
 
Last edited:
“Intrinsic evil” means an action is “always and everywhere” evil under any circumstances.

Changes to CCC 2267 taken WITH the Vatican explanation of this change means . . . .

This change HAS TO be viewed as prudential doctrinal teaching and not in the sense of faith and morals and thus capital punishment is NOT an intrinsic evil.

Why?

Because the document that the Vatican itself explaining this issue stated that this is . . . . .
doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime.
Click to expand...
(Bold mine)

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html

So however you interpret this, it MUST be in harmony with prior Magisterial teachings.

Therefore the most you can say regarding capital punishment being “inadmissible”
is that it concerns . . . “TODAY”.

And that is exactly what we see in the clarification document section 6 . . . .
  1. In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that “TODAY capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been.” . . .
Click to expand...
(bold mine)
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, composed under the supervision of St. Charles Borromeo, stated: “Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thou shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top