Pope Francis Changes Catechism to Declare Death Penalty ‘Inadmissible’

[HarryStotle]

Pug:

Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast.

This ^ is not Christianity. We are not to judge the dignity of others. Much less base the taking of another person’s life on that judgment. That just seems obvious to me. Comparing the dignity of people to animals is an obvious red flag.

On the face of it, you saying that what St Thomas Aquinas taught “is not Christianity” appears to be an even bigger and more glaringly “obvious red flag.”

Another way of rendering Aquinas’ thought is that by wantonly killing another human being, a murderer has, in effect, abdicated his humanity (and dignity) since he has acted inhumanly or as an animal might, absent any moral awareness.

So Aquinas is speaking about what would be justly deserved by such a man, although the mercy, love and grace of God can and will redeem even such a man if that man avails himself of forgiveness and grace.

 

[Pug]

I agree that neither you nor I cannot judge the dignity of another. I am not sure what to make of what Aquinas wrote there. Aquinas is likely talking about a mortal sinner, but surely he knows that we cannot know the state of a soul. But I know he allocates to the State (only) the authority to condemn to death for the sake of the common good. The State, for him, can judge something or another, but I still wouldn’t immediately think he means it can judge the state of a soul.

I’m wondering if maybe he sees some disfigurement of the likeness to God in a man who has fallen into slavery to sin. Because we are supposed to be free, not slaves.

 

[HarryStotle]

I agree that neither you nor I cannot judge the dignity of another. I am not sure what to make of what Aquinas wrote there. Aquinas is likely talking about a mortal sinner, but surely he knows that we cannot know the state of a soul. But I know he allocates to the State (only) the authority to condemn to death for the sake of the common good. The State, for him, can judge something or another, but I still wouldn’t immediately think he means it can judge the state of a soul.

I’m wondering if maybe he sees some disfigurement of the likeness to God in a man who has fallen into slavery to sin. Because we are supposed to be free, not slaves.

Human dignity is dependent upon humans sharing in the Imago Dei or “Image of God.” Sin, especially mortal sin, removes us from the imprint of God’s image within us, i.e., sin separates us from God, and by sinning we eschew all dignity since we willfully separate ourselves from God who is the source of Being and all dignity itself. Aquinas need not know nor judge anything about the state of another’s soul to make this observation. He is making a “this is the way it is” kind of statement and not committing himself to saying anything specific about this or that person.

 

[Pug]

Agreed. Aquinas is not judging the soul of a particular man. He does not think he can. But he is saying that the agent of the State is making some type of judgement in order to mark a man for death. What is that judgment that the agent makes? Is it that the man has sinned mortally, and thus can be removed for the good of the all the people as a whole?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Okay, then let’s try to reconcile God’s endorsement of the Mosaic Law which sanctioned capital punishment for a number of offenses.

I’m not a biblical scholar. So I don’t know what your talking about unless you cite a specific example.

This opens another moral question for discussion. Is not any kind of punishment, even for lesser crimes, a fortiori, also not a violation of human dignity?

No, that should be obvious.

It would be important to know, just in case we do things to violate the dignity of others, who seem more and more insistent about having their dignity, for not matter what they do, properly respected.

That’s one reason there is a Catholic Church - to help people figure that stuff out

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Another way of rendering Aquinas’ thought is that by wantonly killing another human being, a murderer has, in effect, abdicated his humanity (and dignity) since he has acted inhumanly or as an animal might, absent any moral awareness.

This is also not Christian. Aquinas was not always right. I don’t even know if he was right half of the time.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I’m wondering if maybe he sees some disfigurement of the likeness to God in a man who has fallen into slavery to sin.

Yes I’ll bet he does. But he would be wrong to say that a person enters some sort of irreversible state in life in which they cannot turn back towards God, and therefore it’s okay to kill them in the spirit of retribution.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Human dignity is dependent upon humans sharing in the Imago Dei or “Image of God.” Sin, especially mortal sin, removes us from the imprint of God’s image within us, i.e., sin separates us from God, and by sinning we eschew all dignity since we willfully separate ourselves from God who is the source of Being and all dignity itself

Where did you get this from? We cannot make our God given dignity disappear…that would make us non-human.

 

[Pug]

If the supposed mortal sinner sits in a jail cell for a bit, there is no telling what state his soul would be in when someone finally gets around to executing him. A priest might have visited him, he might have made an act of perfect contrition…and then he would no longer be out of grace. So then they kill him. Thus the justification for killing at that moment doesn’t seem to be that he lacks a certain dignity. At best it could have been the supposed reason for allowing the sentencing of him, maybe.

 

[Cathoholic]

Pug . . .

Is it that the man has sinned mortally, and thus can be removed for the good of the all the people as a whole?

I don’t think it is because someone commits mortal sin that is the premise for the state having the authority to carry out capital punishment.

But at times it can be deemed necessary by the state to carry out such punishment, in order to protect other people.

It is a state-determined . . . Self-defense issue. (There are other reasons the state may or may not put forth, but they are on the most solid ground, concerning reasons of self-defense concerning other people.

 

[neptasur]

1Lord1Faith,

Is it the case that you will claim that any defense of capital punishment would be, as you say, “not Christianity”? Is that the case? So if you say yes to that question, and my next post has many instances of the bible and the Catholic Church throughout history affirming the moral licitness of the death penalty will that show that the Catholic Church was not Christian until Vatican II?

 

[neptasur]

You know what, come to think of it, you are in a discussion about whether the current and historic teaching on the death penalty is consistent, and you have already conceded that you do not know what the historic teaching is. Therefore, you have no basis to even be in this discussion and this has taken far to much energy. Thanks for the discussion. Goodbye.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Another way of rendering Aquinas’ thought is that by wantonly killing another human being, a murderer has, in effect, abdicated his humanity (and dignity) since he has acted inhumanly or as an animal might, absent any moral awareness.

This is also not Christian. Aquinas was not always right. I don’t even know if he was right half of the time.

That would seem to assume that you are right all of the time, or at least right enough on the things Aquinas wrote about to say that he was only right “half of the time.”

And that, despite that you are professedly “not a Biblical scholar.”

Do you, at least, happen to be a Catholic theologian or Catholic philosopher to be sufficiently versed in Church teaching that you are competent to say how often Aquinas happened to have been correct – you know, about half the time?

Which would seem to imply that you have at least twice the understanding of Aquinas on all of those theological questions to assess his error rate.

The Catholic Church – the one established to “help people figure that stuff out” – seems to think Aquinas’ batting average was higher than .500. That would be the reason he is one of only 35 declared Doctors of the Church and a saint.

Your credentials to say that Aquinas was only correct half of the time would be what, exactly?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Human dignity is dependent upon humans sharing in the Imago Dei or “Image of God.” Sin, especially mortal sin, removes us from the imprint of God’s image within us, i.e., sin separates us from God, and by sinning we eschew all dignity since we willfully separate ourselves from God who is the source of Being and all dignity itself

Where did you get this from? We cannot make our God given dignity disappear…that would make us non-human.

Not exactly. It would make us less than fully human. Neither does it answer the question of what is required for us to lose our dignity.

I would suppose that a mortal sin functions precisely to make our human dignity disappear because what dignifies us sufficiently to share divine life is what enables our human dignity. To abdicate our eternal dignity is an affront to God because we are refusing to accept his offer to share his own Life with us. We have no dignity apart from being what God created us to be. Dignity is not something we can conjure ourselves out of whole cloth, apart from God. Ergo, separation from God subtracts any dignity we might have.

If you don’t think so, you need to spell out precisely what human dignity is and how we might lose it.

Food for thought from the CCC…

1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.

1487 The sinner wounds God’s honor and love, his own human dignity as a man called to be a son of God, and the spiritual well-being of the Church, of which each Christian ought to be a living stone.

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

1978 The natural law is a participation in God’s wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Human dignity is dependent upon humans sharing in the Imago Dei or “Image of God.” Sin, especially mortal sin, removes us from the imprint of God’s image within us, i.e., sin separates us from God, and by sinning we eschew all dignity since we willfully separate ourselves from God who is the source of Being and all dignity itself

Where did you get this from? We cannot make our God given dignity disappear…that would make us non-human.

You might also want to think about…

2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.

So the Church has taught that the "deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being."

It doesn’t say killing in self-defence is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being. Nor has it ever claimed that the capital punishment of someone who deliberately murdered an innocent human being, and thereby acted in a manner gravely contrary to human dignity, is by itself contrary to the dignity of the human person.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I would suppose that a mortal sin functions precisely to make our human dignity disappear because what dignifies us sufficiently to share divine life is what enables our human dignity.

The thing is, what you’re writing here ^ isn’t what the CCC is saying. What the CCC does say matches perfectly with the revision of CCC n. 2267. The CCC is saying that just by virtue of being a human being, any person has an inherent dignity because every human being is made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

So the Church has taught that the "deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being."

It doesn’t say killing in self-defence is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being

This is not what the revision states. The letter to the bishops touched on this point.

.

 

[Trying2overcome]

So is death penalty a matter of discipline now? Because doctrine cannot change. Absolutely not.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

So the Church has taught that the "deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being."

It doesn’t say killing in self-defence is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being

This is not what the revision states. The letter to the bishops touched on this point.

That may not be what the revision actually states, but the implication of “inadmissible” seems to be that capital punishment is no longer admissible under any conceivable circumstances. However, circumstances could change such that modern societies could revert to states where capital punishment functions, in effect, as the self-defence of citizens acting in unison against lawless murderers of the innocent. Would capital punishment then be admissible once again?

What, precisely, is the principle by which it is determined when CP is admissible and when it isn’t? Are such circumstances clearly spelled out, or is this an “in principle” type of inadmissibility because we are all now modern and know better purely because we live in a now enlightened world?

I thought Jesus was the light that enlightens all men, I didn’t think it was the times that we live in that brought about that enlightenment. Good to know the light has only in this age been turned on, and that the Apostles and Church Fathers were nowhere near the light as we are today, even though today we condone killing of the unborn and abdicating gender differences.

It just seems odd for the Catechism to say such circumstances nowhere exist anywhere on earth at this particular point in time. Is the Pope or are the bishops so confident in their awareness of events in the world that they can reliably hold that to be true, especially given that they didn’t seem to be completely aware of the extent to which the sexual abuse of minors was happening under their watch?

Suppose the situation gets much worse in the course of a hundred years and to counter a regression of society towards a more Hobbesian world politicians begin to advocate for a more frequent implementation of the death penalty for unrepentant murderers. Will the bishops or more “progressive” Catholics have recourse to claim such politicians should not be elected because capital punishment is “inadmissible” being, as it is, an affront to human dignity?

 

[Joe_5859]

Here’s a good article from Msgr. Pope on the need for a bit of circumspection in our reaction to this news

Let’s Be Careful in Our Charges Regarding the New Wording of the Catechism on the Death Penalty - Community in Mission