Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible'

[una_ecclesia]

Sure. The main passage people point to is Romans 13:1-5… In particular vs 4:

“1 Everyone is to obey the governing authorities, because there is no authority except from God and so whatever authorities exist have been appointed by God.
2 So anyone who disobeys an authority is rebelling against God’s ordinance; and rebels must expect to receive the condemnation they deserve.
3 Magistrates bring fear not to those who do good, but to those who do evil. So if you want to live with no fear of authority, live honestly and you will have its approval;
4 it is there to serve God for you and for your good. But if you do wrong, then you may well be afraid; because it is not for nothing that the symbol of authority is the sword: it is there to serve God, too, as his avenger, to bring retribution to wrongdoers.
5 You must be obedient, therefore, not only because of this retribution, but also for conscience’s sake.”

Now, the main point of the passage is practical advice for Christians to be legally on their best behavior, but within Paul’s logic is the idea that the states have a legitimate authority, even to “wield the sword” (insofar as it is just, of course). Other verses that people point to are weaker as support in that they merely reflect the DP as something that occurred and was accepted in the law (for example, the good thief’s statement to Jesus that his own punishment was just), but without any theological justification.

 

[Wesrock]

mere_christian:

But sad truth is, anyway you slice it this is a change in the churches position.

What Pope Francis is saying here doesn’t strike me so much as a “change” rather than simply taking what John Paul II said a step further.

John Paul II said that cases where the death penalty would be permissible in the present age (with our present means of incarceration) “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” Ever since then, most bishops and theologians I have heard speak on the matter have basically said that the conditions where it would be allowed are—in point of fact—“non-existent.” Pope Francis is more or less just confirming this.

I would be fine with this. But the language seems to go beyond that. It alludes to societal advancement, but then basically uses language that implies “regardless of development, it’s always and everywhere been wrong.” Which is why I lament the lack of clarity.

 

[LittleFlower378]

but then basically uses language that implies “regardless of development, it’s always and everywhere been wrong.” Which is why I lament the lack of clarity.

That would make the death penalty intrinsically evil, and that it is not. The Pope is saying it’s not necessary in OUR TIME…and I agree with the Pope here.

 

[mere_christian]

No but as you say they are respected theologians and they are both in agreement plus it gives us a look in to the views and teaching of the church in their time period.Considering the wide amount of time between the two , their alignment on this issue lends evidence to the consistency of this teaching, they are also not the only people who taught this. It was the consistent position until modern times.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Can you provide examples?

John 19:10-11
10 Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?”
11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”

Luke 25:39-41
39 One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.”

Acts 25:10-11
10 But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried; to the Jews I have done no wrong, as you know very well.
11 If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death; but if there is nothing in their charges against me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

Romans 13:1-4
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

Revelations 13:9-10
9 If any one has an ear, let him hear:
10 If any one is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if any one slays with the sword, with the sword must he be slain. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints.

 

[Peebo]

Assumptions can be deceiving…wrong on both counts

 

[mrsdizzyd]

but within Paul’s logic is the idea that the states have a legitimate authority, even to “wield the sword” (insofar as it is just, of course)

And when the weilding of the sword is not just?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Same question, and when the wielding of the sword is unjust?

 

[pprimeau1976]

I think whoever said the Catholic Church does not change its teachings needs to rethink this statement now.

I know…the teachings on capital punishment didn’t change, they underwent development, like a caterpillar develops into a butterfly.

It makes me wonder whether we should be open to more developments in doctrine

 

[Cruciferi]

Well, how much can I glean from a politically charged cartoon?

So you’ll have to elaborate or deal with assumptions.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

but then basically uses language that implies “regardless of development, it’s always and everywhere been wrong.” Which is why I lament the lack of clarity.

That would make the death penalty intrinsically evil, and that it is not. And that’s not what the Pope is saying.

The language does not make what the Pope is saying clear. We have to apply our knowledge of past teaching. Yet the lack of clarity means people will continue to argue it’s intrinsically evil and cite this as support and also makes defending the Church more difficult against accusations of inconsistency.

And also, I hesitate to say, but there have been cases where a Pope’s personal views have been in error. The charism of infallibility merely prevents them from using an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium to formally declare it as doctrine/dogma.

 

[una_ecclesia]

If it’s done against an innocent man, for example. Or if the punishment exceeds the gravity of the crime. Or if it’s done merely as vengeance and not for the common good of protecting society at large.

 

[mere_christian]

But the justice of its use is based on the actions of the accused not on alternative methods of justice available to the state. Rome was capable of imprisoning you on a war galley, sending you to work in the mines, enslaving you. All of these were viable alternatives to the death penalty. Does paul argue, for any of these other methods as an alternative? No.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

The problem is the wording used:

“no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”[11]

It is not stated that it is inadmissible because we have the means to detain and rehabilitate people. It is not stated that there is no longer a legitimate need for the death penalty.

Rather, it states that the reason for it’s inadmissibility is due to its attacking and violation of the dignity of the person.

Nothing has changed to make the death penalty now an attack and a violation of dignity of the person where it was not in the past.

This statement seems to render previous stances of the church as incorrect, and it is this wording that is presenting a problem.

My problem is not with there being an objection to the death penalty, but rather the apparent contradiction this wording poses to church authority and infallibility.

 

[Tbrightson]

Seems to me changing doctrine is going on under the guise of “doctrine development”…capital punishment was not a sin but now it is? what next,contraception?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

If it’s done against an innocent man, for example. Or if the punishment exceeds the gravity of the crime. Or if it’s done merely as vengeance and not for the common good of protecting society at large.

This is precisely the issue. St. JPII said cases of just use of the DP were practically non-existent. Pope Francis says they are non-existent.

 

[una_ecclesia]

The early Church’s position on capital punishment is actually all over the place. Some Fathers were against it, others for it. Here is a good article about the early church and the death penalty. As I see it JPII actually managed to get to the core of both sides and pull what was true from both in his formulations.

The early Church and the death penalty

 

[Annie]

In the hhistory of the Church, this is but a blip in the road. We have always had controversies, which went on and on, and sometimes had to be reconciled by a council.

The main points in considering Catholicism is: is this the Church Christ founded? Was Christ telling the truth when He said the Holy Spirit would protect the Church?

The fact that we agree with this or that teaching is subjugating the Church to our opinions: if we disagree with only one teaching, we are doing that, according to St Thomas Aquinas.

Pray for your mother and grandmother: prayer is way more powerful than our mere words.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

But the justice of its use is based on the actions of the accused not on alternative methods of justice available to the state. Rome was capable of imprisoning you on a war galley, sending you to work in the mines, enslaving you. All of these were viable alternatives to the death penalty. Does paul argue, for any of these other methods as an alternative? No.

Roman prisoners imprisioned on war galleys were worked and starved to death. It was still a death penalty.

Not based on the actions of the accused. They were based on justice. An important point of distinction.

 

[Peebo]

Stand your ground and the right to self defense can have different connotations here in Florida…I can agree with the right to self defense…I don’t necessarily agree the stand your ground law as it applied in some cases here in Florida