Pope Francis, Death Penalty, and Infallibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rose9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rose9

Guest
Hi Everyone,

I have a genuine concern. Up to this point, I have had no qualms about accepting any of the Church’s teachings. It made sense to me that if God was going to establish a church to propagate his revelation, then he would preserve that church’s teachings on faith and moral from error. Thus the teaching on infallibility made complete sense to me. And it still does…

But I am concerned about the fact that Pope Francis has taught that the death penalty is ‘inadmissible.’ I don’t even support having the death penalty, in practice, in the contemporary west. But to teach that it is intrinsically wrong contradicts the church’s traditional teaching. Either Pope Francis is wrong or the past teaching of the church is wrong. Either way, the teaching on infallibility would be proved incorrect. And if this past teaching can be proved incorrect, then how can we guarantee that the Church’s teaching on anything else couldn’t, in theory, be changed?

So am I misunderstanding Pope Francis’ claim? If he is mistaken, is this not an instance where he is speaking with the charism of infallibility? Again, I’m not interested in assessing whether the death penalty is admissible, I’m just worried about the issue of infallibility. Thanks

Rose
 
Last edited:
It is this Pope’s opinion and teaching that the death penalty is inadmissible. To the extent that he is directing it to go in the CCC. But the Catechism is not infallible. And the Pope is teaching here. It is not infallible. Even though you and I may disagree we should respect His teaching and give it extra weight because he is the Pope. And honestly it doesnt really affect our day to day lives. I’d imagine that a Catholuc in good conscience could not now serve on a jury in a death penalty case. Where I live someone is facing the death penalty for some pretty bad crimes and the case is really strong. The action was so bad that I root in my head for the death penalty. But I would also have a hard time if I was on the jury and personally responsible. If someone was harming me or my family I’d have not even a second thought about lethal force if I had to. But the death penalty is removed from the threat and emotion. Its hard because I’m conflicted with the apparent need for justice. All this to say… it will probably never affect me so much that it becomes s stumbling block to faith. Also, i like to think our dear pontiff would have something very different to say to a victims family that perhaps felt the death penalty was just.
 
Graciew, thanks, but that thread is about the death penalty. As I mention in my question, I’m only interested in the infallibility issue.

Hoosier-Daddy, thanks. If the catechism isn’t infallible, I guess there is no problem. As I stated in the original question, I already don’t endorse the death penalty for modern western societies. And I live in Canada, so we don’t have the death penalty. But I’m not interested in discussing the death penalty, just infallibility.
 
It remains the case that Catholics can discuss the legitimacy of the Death Penalty, it is no longer the case that we can actively support it society or call for it to be established.

It enjoys the same position within Catholic social teachings such as slavery, where the Church while recognising that indentured servitude is in principle okay, it condemns the buying and selling of people, and has completely banned the practice for Catholics because of the spiritual dangers. We may not support it, or try to reestablish it.
 
As Cardinal Ratzinger noted on the authority of the Catechism:
The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.
Click to expand...
He elaborates further on this point:
The catechism must certainly avoid giving the impression that all the statements it contains have the same degree of certainty. It would be neither practical nor desirable constantly to indicate these degrees (de fide, de fide definita, sententia communis, etc.). Rather, the doctrine’s degree of certainty should be evident from the context from the way it is stated, from the doctrinal authority of the statement.
Click to expand...
The infallibility of the Pope, like that of the Church as a whole when making such judgments, only applies to those truths which are revealed (which must be believed with faith) or necessarily connected to revelation (which must be definitively held). These things are irreformable and unity in these things is necessary for communion in the Church.

No where does Pope Francis indicate his proposition is being put forth as either of these things. No where does he say accepting this is necessary for communion. Nowhere does he say what he is saying is irreformable or definitive (in fact, his whole premise is based on reform based on changing circumstances). Nowhere has the Church ever taught it is one of these things. By using the Catechism as a vehicle, it demonstrates his intent not to elevate this proposition to anything more than it ever was. He could certainly be in error when proposing something in this way.
 
Last edited:
Just add, I found Cardinal Gomez’ clarification of Pope Francis’ change helpful:

He affirms the Church’s irreformable and revealed doctrine:
The Scriptures, along with saints and teachers in the Church’s tradition, justify the death penalty as a fitting punishment for those who commit evil or take another person’s life. And the Church has always recognized that governments and civil authorities have the right to carry out executions in order to protect their citizens’ lives and punish those guilty of the gravest crimes against human life and the stability of the social order.
Click to expand...
In addition, he notes:
The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral.
Click to expand...
He then notes “from a practical standpoint” it should no longer be used.

He elaborates more on the prudential aspect–“in these times and in this culture”–while acknowledging disagreement of those of good will (there is no condemnation here of those who disagree in good conscience):
I respect that many good people will continue to believe that our society needs the death penalty to express its moral outrage and to punish those who commit the ultimate crime of taking human life.

But I do not believe that public executions serve to advance that message in our secular society.

We all need to consider how much violence has become an accepted part of American society and popular culture. There is not only the random violence we see every day in our communities. But we are also a society that permits our children to play video games that involve them “virtually” killing their enemies; much of our popular “entertainment” consists of movies and other programs that involve fictional characters committing heinous murders and other unspeakable acts.

In this kind of society, executing criminals sends no moral signal. It is simply one more killing in a culture of death.

The Church today is pointing us in a different direction.

Showing mercy to those who do not “deserve” it, seeking redemption for persons who have committed evil, working for a society where every human life is considered sacred and protected — this is how we are called to follow Jesus Christ and proclaim his Gospel of life in these times and in this culture.
Click to expand...
https://angelusnews.com/voices/archbishop-gomez/catechismdeathpenaltystatement
 
Last edited:
Until the word “inadmissable” is actually defined I don’t know what to think of the Pope’s opinion.
 
With a lack of clarification on why this change was made (the document put out by the CDF was unconvincing and vague IMO) and the lack of a clear meaning of the word “inadmissable”, it is difficult to know what to think of this new teaching. It is certainly not an infallible teaching, that is clear. The more I hear about it, the more I am leaning towards the belief that the Pope really does mean to say that the death penalty is intrinsically evil like abortion, euthanasia, etc., even though such a change would be impossible for the Pope to make and would be far more than a “development of doctrine” and would be a blatant contradiction.
 
The Pope’s pronouncements must be understood in light of the whole of Church teaching.

First off: the death penalty in and of itself is not inherently immoral. Period, full stop. Its primary purpose is retribution, i.e. punishment. Not to protect society, not to deter would-be criminals. Those are only secondary benefits. Its primary purpose is to deprive the offender of his life to redress the disorder caused by his crime. This is a moral reason to inflict the death penalty, and this the Church has always held.

However, just because the death penalty as a principle is not immoral, individual applications of the death penalty can be immoral. Examples are executions for political reasons, or overzealousness in executing someone even when reasonable doubt exists (regardless of the condemned’s actual guilt). Pope Francis (and St. John Paul II before him) formed prudential judgments on whether it’s still right for the death penalty to be applied in today’s circumstances, when there probably exists advanced sciences to rehabilitate criminals.

This prudential judgment does not constitute definitive teaching, and just as with St. John Paul’s disagreeing on this matter does not place one out of good standing with the Church and does not render a person unfit to receive Communion. We need to be very careful when disagreeing though, because it may have been well thought out. But neither this Pope nor St. John Paul changed Church teaching because, simply, they cannot. The death penalty, in principle, remains moral, even if one were to admit that circumstances no longer justify its use today.

The Pope did not exercise his charism of infallibility with this declaration. Not everything that comes out of his mouth or pen is infallible.
 
I for one, call for the death penalty for all pedophiles. Maybe we can start with McCarrick.
 
You are onto something. The problem I see with him claiming the death penalty is inadmissible, is that it directly contradicts historical teaching, so therefore wouldn’t it be considered a heretical teaching?
 
porthos11 said:
The Pope did not exercise his charism of infallibility with this declaration. Not everything that comes out of his mouth or pen is infallible.
Click to expand...
Porthos, if only the Pope had just said what you wrote!. Thanks for the clear thoughts!
 
In my experience, and your question adds to that experience, the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is not often well understood. Not everything a pope utters is infallible. Indeed, the dogma on papal infallibility lays down conditions that are to be met for any papal pronouncement to be considered an infallible teaching on faith or morals.

The Catholic Church’s teaching on the death penalty has not simply been the death penalty is acceptable. The Church teaches it may be used when there is no other alternative. Prior to Pope Franci’s’s decision on this matter, his predecessor St John Paul II had said that whilst it remained the Church’s teaching the death penalty could be used in some circumstances he saw no circumstances in modern times when it was necessary. Therefore, Pope Francis’s teaching on this issue is, I believe, consistent with what Holy Mother Church has always taught on this issue.

It is not a matter of the pope pronouncing an infallible teaching. It is not a teaching that breaks with the Church’s tradition.
 
TomH1 said:
In my experience, and your question adds to that experience, the Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is not often well understood. Not everything a pope utters is infallible.
Click to expand...
I know that not everything the Pope says is infallible, but sometimes it is difficult to know when the Pope is speaking infallibly and when he is not. That is why I was asking for clarification.

" Indeed, the dogma on papal infallibility lays down conditions that are to be met for any papal pronouncement to be considered an infallible teaching on faith or morals."
I know a Pope’s comments on whether blue is better than green would not be infallible, but the death penalty is a matter of morals

Porthos, you said:
“However, just because the death penalty as a principle is not immoral, individual applications of the death penalty can be immoral.”
I agree. But ‘inadmissible’ could suggest that it is always immoral. That is why I am confused.

Weserthy, you said:
“With a lack of clarification on why this change was made (the document put out by the CDF was unconvincing and vague IMO) and the lack of a clear meaning of the word “inadmissable”, it is difficult to know what to think of this new teaching. It is certainly not an infallible teaching, that is clear.”

Yes, ‘inadmissible’ needs to be clarified. But thank you for answering my question. It eases my conscience to know this doesn’t negate infallibility.
 
Last edited:
The Pope speaks infallibly only when he intends to define, in his capacity as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, something to be definitively held by all the faithful as belonging to the deposit of faith. This statement on the death penalty does not meet all those requirements. He did not use his supreme teaching office, he did not define something to be definitively held, and cannot do so without contradicting the ordinary Magisterium.

“Inadmissible” cannot be taken to mean “inherently evil”. Only that there is no justifiable reason to inflict it today. As with anything involving a virtue (prudence), there is a moral dimension to this. So while we have to affirm that the death penalty is not an inherent evil, the Pope’s prudential opinion is that the demand of justice to deprive of an offender of his life is outweighed by the other factors that should justify keeping him alive. And if such factors do outweigh the demand of justice to kill the offender, and they execute him anyway, that could very well be an immoral act (acting against the virtue of prudence).

One does not have to agree with this opinion, and it may not be applicable in all places and to all offenders, but I still think it should be considered very, very carefully, especially considering the finality of such a penalty.
 
Last edited:
Rose9 said:
Hi Everyone,

I have a genuine concern. Up to this point, I have had no qualms about accepting any of the Church’s teachings. It made sense to me that if God was going to establish a church to propagate his revelation, then he would preserve that church’s teachings on faith and moral from error. Thus the teaching on infallibility made complete sense to me. And it still does…

But I am concerned about the fact that Pope Francis has taught that the death penalty is ‘inadmissible.’ I don’t even support having the death penalty, in practice, in the contemporary west. But to teach that it is intrinsically wrong contradicts the church’s traditional teaching. Either Pope Francis is wrong or the past teaching of the church is wrong. Either way, the teaching on infallibility would be proved incorrect. And if this past teaching can be proved incorrect, then how can we guarantee that the Church’s teaching on anything else couldn’t, in theory, be changed?

So am I misunderstanding Pope Francis’ claim? If he is mistaken, is this not an instance where he is speaking with the charism of infallibility? Again, I’m not interested in assessing whether the death penalty is admissible, I’m just worried about the issue of infallibility. Thanks

Rose
Click to expand...
Rose9, the word intrinsically means always evil past, present, future and in all cultures and civil conditions. The Church has never claimed that and has spoken out numerous times against the argument that it is.

What the Church is speaking against now, is the contrary argument that the death penalty is intrinsically just and can never be abolished by a civil authority. Pope Francis is not creating a new teaching and will never describe ‘inadmissible’ as instrinsically evil. That is the red herring being bandied about to confuse a simple issue.

What we from non US countries know, is that every country in the world of Judeo Christian origin (apart from tiny eastern bloc Belarus), has abolished the death penalty as no longer serving our evolved understanding of human worth and dignity. Throughout this more than a century of abolition, the Church has never spoken against civil abolition and keep in mind, the many Popes prior to Vatican II were also silent on the issue.

The reason the Church today is speaking, is not to create a new teaching, but to counter a false interpretation of the Catholic position. It is completely false to argue that the death penalty cannot be abolished by civil authorities because it is intrinsically just.
 
Rose9, you used two words and seem to be equating them. You used the word “inadmissible”, which the Pope used, and then referred to it as “intrinsically evil”. However, the Pope did not say that.

If we take an extremely “thumbnail” look at the death penalty, it was permissible, then John Paul 2 taught that it was only permissible if the State could not provide society with sufficient protection (one should read his actual statement), in that modern incarceration provides that protection in almost all instances. Now Pope Francis has moved that a small bit further, effectively saying that given the status of incarceration, it is not currently admissible. He did not rule as to any future where that might change (such as a major revolution, where the State has lost control of such procedures).

The Pope is eminently capable of saying something is intrinsically evil. He did not say that. And while I would agree in most instances with no death penalty, a case out of Washington State this last year provides a different picture.

An individual was serving a sentence of life (I believe with no parole), 7+ years ago while incarcerated, he strangled to death a female guard while in the prison chapel. The trial of that second murder resulted in a death penalty sentence, which this last year was overturned by the Washington State Supreme Court as constitutionally impermissible.

So in effect, his sentence was “If you kill a prison guard, it makes no difference because you are already on life with no parole”.
 
You may not understand the strictures within which a statement must be to be considered as being made infallible (someone above me has said such) by a pope.
The catechism is also not infallible; it’s like a summary of a book that is Catholic teaching. If the summary portrays something incorrectly, it doesn’t change the content of the book.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top