Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible'

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrsdizzyd said:
Same question, and when the wielding of the sword is unjust?
Click to expand...
I provided those examples only because they were requested. I am not disagreeing with you, nor am I seeking to support the death penalty or it’s use, but rather questioning the wording used in the revision and how it seems to illegitimize previous positions of the Church.

We can oppose it’s use while still recognizing the state’s authority to utilize it. The wording of the revision appear to state that there is and never was an authorization to utilize it because it attacks and violates human dignity.

Either it does and always has, or it does not.
 
Last edited:
Equally prisoners today, are killed by other prisoners. And its possible for a galley slave, or mine slave to find their freedom and redemption. The chances may be slim buy a better chance then being executed. S
 
mere_christian said:
s a protestant who for the last several years has been making steps towards the catholic church. This saddens me immensely. I almost believed that the idea that catholic church was protected from teaching error, this seems to fly in the face of that.
Click to expand...
The underlying Church doctrine of respect for life has not changed one iota. The Church is simply putting the doctrine into practice in a better and more evolved way.

Joining the Catholic Church does not mean you get a black and white rule book that is never updated. As we were discussing on another thread, there have been a number of changes in the Catechism of the church since just the early 1900s. The Catechism is not an infallible document and is intended to be revised from time to time in order to better apply the Church doctrines, which do not change, to our daily life in society, which does change.

If you join the Church thinking you will be getting a black and white, written in stone “rule book”, you will end up being disappointed and probably leave, so please think a little more deeply.
 
Im not looking for a black and white rule book but consistency . Considering I’ve been on this journey for close to 7 years, i think its fair to say i’ve been considering deeply, perhaps more deeply then some cradle Catholics
 
Last edited:
mrsdizzyd said:
And when the death penalty is misapplied? When prisoners lives are terminated before they have a chance to repent of their sins?

Does the death penalty not also harm society and interfere with the will of God?
Click to expand...
All penalties can, are, and will be misapplied. Putting an innocent man in jail for life is no small injustice. Our justice system gives everyone a chance to repent. It isn’t instant justice.

The will of God is that we all die eventually.
 
I don’t see what the big deal is. This is only an incremental change to the 1994 Catechism’s position on the DP. Even then the CCC argued there were almost no cases where it was right to use. (correction—the language against the DP was strengthened in light of St. John Paul II’s positions on the subject in 1997)

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
 
Last edited:
We have to be careful here. Dogma cannot change, the teaching that there are acts that are intrinsically evil and never allowed and never will be cannot change. But the death penalty Is not intrinsically evil, so it depends on circumstances whether it should be allowed or not. Pope Francis believes at this time in our society it is not necessary.
 
Last edited:
Canvas said:
I don’t see what the big deal is. This is only an incremental change to the 1994 Catechism’s position on the DP. Even then the CCC argued there were almost no cases where it was right to use.

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
Click to expand...
Precisely.

To go from practically non-existent to non-existent is not a major change.

Some don’t like the wording of the letter from the CDF. Perhaps they will clarify at a future date.
 
Then this issue shouldn’t bother you. The previous version of the Catechism suggested that the death penalty was only acceptable in “rare cases” where there was no other way. The current version does not seem to me like much of a change.

The Church has had the teaching of respect for life for a very long time. It would be hypocritical for the Church to advocate respect for life in the case of abortion and euthanasia, but not in the case of an execution.
 
Canvas said:
I don’t see what the big deal is. This is only an incremental change to the 1994 Catechism’s position on the DP. Even then the CCC argued there were almost no cases where it was right to use.

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.
"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender ‘today … are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]
Click to expand...
The revised language could easily be taken as directly stating the DP has everywhere and always been inadmissible and intrinsically evil. Hence the concerns.
 
Last edited:
if thats the case Catholics are free to disagree with him then, and priests are free to teach differently?
 
LittleFlower378 said:
Pope Francis has not changed Dogma or Doctrine, and has not declared the death penalty intrinsically evil(like abortion euthanasia, same sex marriage) but has seen fit to state that the death penalty is not needed in today’s society. Maybe In a different time it would be needed but now, in our society he believes it’s not needed.
Click to expand...
So what has he done exactly? Has he inserted personal opinion into the universal Catechism? Has he inserted a temporal truth into the Catechism?

The other day someone here wrote about how the Baltimore Catechism wasn’t all that great because it included temporal truths like how Catholics should interact with Protestants. Yet here we have the exact same problem inserted into the CCC.

Also, a different time when capital punishment is needed could be tomorrow. How are we to know when that time has arrived? We need clear teaching.
 
LittleFlower378 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So then this is a prudential judgment. Should prudential judgments be in the Catechism?
 
We should definitely take what he says here into consideration and apply it. We can have a different opinion.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.” [Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion, General Principles, n. 3]"
 
Wesrock said:
The revised language could easily be taken as directly stating the DP has everywhere and always be inadmissible and intrinsically evil. Hence the concerns.
Click to expand...
How are you reading it as “always been” when the wording of the second section begins “Today, in fact, given the means at the Staate’s disposal…” It’s pretty clear that the change is because States now have better mechanisms at their disposal to keep people in prison for life than they used to have.
 
Firstly this change seems to suggest that the Death penalty by its very nature violates human dignity which is a huge change

secondly while it may not be different to the previous catechism it is very different to catechisms prior to that. So as ive said before incremental changes add up in to big changes.
Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5:
“The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy 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. In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Psalm 101:8).”
Click to expand...
Finally, the idea that its hypocritical to believe that murdering innocent babies is wrong but agreeing thatguilty murderers should be punished for their crime does not stand up to reason. They are separate issues
 
What about respect for the victims life? Do they not deserve justice, is their life not worth the value of the criminals?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top