Pope Francis Changes Catechism to Declare Death Penalty ‘Inadmissible’

[JimG]

Edward Feser’s article begins this way:

“In a move that should surprise no one, Pope Francis has once again appeared to contradict two millennia of clear and consistent scriptural and Catholic teaching.”

The rest of the article goes on to explain the matter in great detail.

 

[graciew]

That we are made in His image…
All of us.

 

[Telstar]

That we are made in His image…

I think you might have missed the first half of that command of God:

Genesis 9: [6] Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God.

However, in view of official Catholic teaching, would it be a mortal sin to vote in favor of the death penalty?

That’s a very good question considering the change that was made, isn’t it? On the other hand, it is still a mortal sin to vote for someone who openly supports the killing of innocent babies by abortion. That might give some Catholics a more difficult decision to make, or it might serve to justify those who choose to do the latter. But, only one of those choices actually concerns voting for an intrinsic evil. Muddy waters, indeed.

 

[graciew]

Talion law? Is that what you picked in the context of Genesis and the Covenant?
Do you realize that there are brothers there? Brothers. And God.
We re made in His image.
Then He continues with His promise ,a covenant.
Very merciful Father indeed.

 

[AlNg]

The rest of the article goes on to explain the matter in great detail.

Thanks for referencing this article by Edward Feser. It is important because Mr. Feser is a distinguished Catholic author. Of course, one of his books was “By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of the Death Penalty” so perhaps he has a reason to argue against the latest reform of the CCC. Of course he has written other books also:
The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism
Scholastic Metaphysics: A Contemporary Introduction
Neo-Scholastic Essays
Five Proofs of the Existence of God
The philosophy of mind
Locke
Aquinas: A beginner’s guide

 

[neptasur]

1Lord1Faith,

Of course an unjust killing is an intrinsic evil, by definition of the terms. Francis says that the motive for this change to the catechism is to clarify the development of doctrine on the issue. What development has occurred if not a reversal? JPII, Benedict, et.al., have already stated that capital punishment is just in principle, but unnecessary in practice. If Francis intends only that, what is being further clarified?

Francis says that capital punishment is inadmissible because it’s a violation of human dignity. How is this claim not to be understood as saying that past church teaching endorsed moral evil? In the scenario you give, would you be claiming then that the state can “violate human dignity” to “keep people safe”? If capital punishment is justifiable in some circumstance (such as “keep[ing] people safe”), then it would be, by definition, not a “violation of human dignity”, right?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

In the scenario you give, would you be claiming then that the state can “violate human dignity” to “keep people safe”?

First of all, the revision uses the word inadmissible not evil, or any such form of the word evil.

When I read the letter to the bishops I don’t get the impression that the revision is against the the death penalty in circumstances where human dignity requires it to be used. The problem comes about when trying to define the term death penalty. In modern terms, the revision states it is inadmissible, and it should no longer be used a deterrent.

 

[Joe_5859]

In Fr. Longnecker’s blog, he quotes the letter of a friend regarding the hullabaloo from this change. I thought this paragraph in particular was insightful (and I’d encourage anyone who has concerns to read the whole thing):

Moreover, because of the many dangers to respect for human life and the dignity of the human person, it seems better today that we should affirm the right to life of every person from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death and therefore set aside the abstract right of society to use capital punishment as a measure of last resort.

That seems to me to be the major benefit to what Pope Francis has done.

 

[neptasur]

1Lord1Faith,

You are claiming we can’t define the term death penalty? It means putting someone to death in response to a crime deemed worthy of death. What is ambiguous about that?

The revision reads: “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”. If this statement is true, the historic teaching of the Catholic Church on capital punishment advocated a moral evil–namely, attacking the “inviolability and dignity of [a] person”. Do you think that the Catholic Church’s past teaching advocated violating human dignity? Is violating human dignity a moral evil?

 

[exnihilo]

Feser is of course spot on. The Pope’s justification for this teaching are confusing and problematic. I am not opposed to the death penalty myself, but to burn down so much in order to oppose it seems extremely foolish.

That seems to me to be the major benefit to what Pope Francis has done.

I disagree. The argument is that because people can’t be bothered to understand nuance we should abandon important distinctions. The same people who don’t wish to understand the distinctions about protecting life won’t be bothered to understand the distinctions about women priestesses, homosexuality or same sex marriage. In fact they will point to this as proof Catholic doctrine can change. They’d have a pretty good argument.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

You are claiming we can’t define the term death penalty? It means putting someone to death in response to a crime deemed worthy of death. What is ambiguous about that?

The reasons for a death sentence vary from nation to nation. What is considered a legitimate death sentence today in Yemen may be considered a hasty trial and a murder in Canada. But in Yemen there is no stable government. So, there is a question about what constitutes a death penalty as the phrase is used in the CCC. The phrasing in the CCC implies that there is a stable public authority carrying out the death penalty. Furthermore, nations and individuals still have the right to protect themselves.

Do you think that the Catholic Church’s past teaching advocated violating human dignity?

No it did not. It advocated protecting people. In practice, at that time, that included the death penalty.

Killing another person does indeed violate their inherent God given dignity, even if that is the only dignity that the individual has left. Every individual retains their inherent God given dignity no matter what they have done. Everyone is made in the image and likeness of God, and that particular dignity cannot be taken away. That is what is being referred to.

That being said, sometimes it is necessary to kill another person in defense. And the Church has always taught that that is not a moral evil. If someone chooses not to kill in their own defense they can do so. If someone chooses to kill another person in their own defense they are allowed to do so. Either choice will be judged by God accordingly. But none of that has ever abrogated the inherent human dignity present in every living person.

 

[neptasur]

1Lord1Faith,

In principle, have no problem agreeing with claims that applying the death penalty equitably presents prudential challenges, and for that reason, should not be permitted in a given circumstance. But, that is different than saying we can’t define the term.

Traditional Catholic teaching on the death penalty involved much more than mere social self-defense. Current church teaching on the subject since Evangelium Vitae has never unambiguously clarified how the other traditional attributes of the question (retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation) can ostensibly be summarily dismissed in preference of social self-defense.

The use of the self-defense analogy limps anyway as in the case of personal self-defense, the self-defender may not morally or legally use lethal force once the aggressor is prevented from committing further harm. In the case of traditional Catholic teaching on the death penalty, the aggressor is killed even after being prevented from doing further harm.

So anyway, to get directly to the point, Pope Francis’ amendment states that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on human dignity (as quoted above). You denied that it is. Therefore, you disagree with Pope Francis. The amendment does not say the death penalty is not necessary for some given reason (which is what past popes have claimed), it says it is an attack on human dignity. It is not outrageous for people to question and ask how this is reconcilable with past teaching.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

It is not outrageous for people to question and ask how this is reconcilable with past teaching.

Of course not. The revision itself gives three reasons:

1. There is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.
2. A new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.
3. More effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

All three of these reasons are newer developments in theology, sociology, and civil engineering and safety. That is how to reconcile this new development with the past.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Well this same pope has questioned Just War Theory as well, so, who knows what the next “development” will be.

 

[AlNg]

Killing another person does indeed violate their inherent God given dignity,

Father Murray questioned whether sending a person to hell would violate his dignity?

 

[neptasur]

1Lord1Faith,

That’s fine for matters that are not part of the irreformable deposit of faith, but the point is that to argue that the traditional teaching on capital punishment is not irreformable will take some very heavy lifting, not just a few easily engineered claims about development of doctrine. The Catholic Church has taught unambiguously for 2000 years (and the OT much longer than that) that the death penalty is morally just. Merely on the face of it, it seems very dubious to claim that the traditional teaching on capital punishment is not part of the deposit of faith. And if it isn’t part of the deposit of faith, what is? We can start trotting out a very long history of consistent Church opinion on this that won’t fit well with Francis’ amendment and that will show that the Church got the deposit of faith wrong? What else may succumb to claims of new understandings in sociology and civil engineering? Perhaps the prohibition on gay marriage is not part of the deposit of faith. Maybe we will have a new understanding on any number of things that will completely reverse the content of the deposit of faith.

 

[Pug]

Of course not. The revision itself gives three reasons:

1. There is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.

Could someone assist me in understanding this one? I’m having trouble knowing what old attitude is meant that is supposed to be gone now that we are more aware. Weren’t we taught to visit the imprisoned? Am I blinded by something here?

 

[angel12]

Could someone assist me in understanding this one? I’m having trouble knowing what old attitude is meant that is supposed to be gone now that we are more aware. Weren’t we taught to visit the imprisoned? Am I blinded by something here?

It says “increasing” awareness. There’s no claim that this is a brand-new idea.

 

[AlNg]

who knows what the next “development” will be.

I am guessing perhaps on artificial birth control or women deacons. Although on Catholic campuses there seems to be a push to honor same sex marriages.

 

[exnihilo]

Could someone assist me in understanding this one? I’m having trouble knowing what old attitude is meant that is supposed to be gone now that we are more aware. Weren’t we taught to visit the imprisoned? Am I blinded by something here?

I don’t think you’ll find an answer. This point isn’t elaborated on at all. It is just an assertion.

It might be said that we have an increasing awareness of the dignity of the person in that we think we shouldn’t, for instance, put people to death. But that would be question begging in asserting the conclusion as the reasoning for the conclusion itself.