Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible'

[yankeesouth]

And at present there are no situations that would warrant recourse to the death penalty.

And one of those situations is not factual. The prison system does not ensure protection of citizens.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

That’s why you own guns.

 

[Canvas]

the age for First Communion and Confession was changed by St. Pius X (from like 12 to 7 or so). Pope Paul VI changed the Rite of Confirmation.

 

[Joe_5859]

Does anyone have the complete wording of Pope Francis’ revision? I just checked the Vatican website and it doesn’t seem to have been updated yet.

Here is what the 1st edition of the CCC (1992) says:

CCC 2267 If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and 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.

Here is what the 2nd edition of the CCC (1997) says:

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” [68]

[68] John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.

And Pope Francis’ revision (2018):

CCC 2267 Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.

Lastly, 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.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

[1] FRANCIS, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 October 2017: L’Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Here is what is being reported as the revision. Note that he makes clear that this change in position is due to changes in society, and also the word “inadmissible” is used, not “immoral”:

The reason stated for it now being “inadmissible” is that it is an attack and violation on human dignity. My question is how a change in society can make this the case now when it was not before? If it is inadmissible now, then wouldn’t it have always been inadmissible? Human dignity cannot change because of the status of society, correct?

 

[Cruciferi]

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

 

[exnihilo]

No, the death penalty does not deter murders. It’s applied so infrequently that it doesn’t deter anything. It serves virtually no purpose except keeping lawyers busy to be honest.
Edited to add, I guess it also gets votes for governors and prosecutors.

But it’s pointless to argue that with someone who is convinced otherwise. So feel free to think what you like.

The death penalty serves two key purposes. It serves justice and it serves to absolutely prevent the criminal from harming anyone else. It is the only method for achieving the latter.

That our criminal justice system is so awful as to drag on capital cases for decades just shows how bad our justice systems are at delivering justice promptly. A purpose of the state is to administer prompt justice. It fails. Just because people want injustice to reign doesn’t mean we should give up altogether.

 

[Canvas]

This is a very, very minor change compared to the change in relations between Catholics and Protestants between the 1917 and 1983 Canon Laws.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The Catechism already taught that it is inadmissible if there are other options available. This change seems to clarify what was already implied: that in prosperous first world countries, there is absolutely no excuse for executing criminals, regardless of the nature of their crime.

But is that distinction made in this pronouncement? One might say it’s implicit in the 'working toward" abolition. But is it?

 

[tseleehw]

A clarification from a dogmatic theologian:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/new...-catechism-to-say-death-penalty-inadmissible/

A dogmatic theologian, who asked not to be named, told the Catholic Herald that the Church’s traditional teaching – which states that the death penalty can be legitimate in some cases – “is irreformable dogma. To deny this or assert the contrary is formally heretical. Catholics remain obliged to believe and accept this doctrine with firm faith regardless of any changes to the Catechism.”

The theologian said that, while the Pope’s term “inadmissible” was ambiguous – and thus not necessarily in contradiction with Church teaching – it would be widely interpreted as meaning “intrinsically immoral”, which would contradict Catholic doctrine.

The change to the Catechism, the theologian said, was part of the “third level” of magisterial teaching, being “non-definitive” (not declared as divinely revealed or connected with divine revelation), and so did not necessarily command assent. “As in any case of conflicting obligations, the lesser obligation yields to the stricter. Just as children are commanded to obey their parents unless and except when their parents command anything contrary to the law of God, so Catholics are required to submit to the third level of magisterial teaching unless and except when it comes into conflict with the first two levels of magisterial teaching.

“Just as children are required to obey the law of God even when it means disobedience to their parents, so Catholics are required to believe and hold the divinely revealed dogmas of the faith and definitive Catholic teaching even if it means dissenting from the authentic magisterium of the pope or bishops.”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If the Church has been somehow neglectful in its official recognition of human dignity before, then it’s time to step up to the plate and fix that. Which it looks like the Pope just did.

It wouldn’t be the first time that the official Church and the Magisterium didn’t always “live their faith” as they should.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

A dogmatic theologian, who asked not to be named

Way to build his credibility if he can’t even man up and take credit for his words.

Wonder if a “dogmatic theologian” even wrote that or did it come from some excommunicated guy or was it made up.

 

[LittleFlower]

A dogmatic theologian, who asked not to be named, told the Catholic Herald

So. Someone nameless has gone to the media and asserted a different opinion. Why not stand behind it with your name? Because of repercussions?

 

[exnihilo]

The theologian said that, while the Pope’s term “inadmissible” was ambiguous

Ambiguity. As I said this does not make Catholic doctrine more clear. This isn’t helpful. And it is just an odd choice of words.

 

[Athanasiy]

Video message

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know why the Catechism would say the following:

“Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens…”

It’s just not so as a practical matter because even if such means exist, why would we think Nigeria is able to produce supermax prisons? Why would we expect Chad not to execute terrorists when they frequently escape?

.

 

[FortressGiant]

First world, second world, the non-aligned movement countries, etc. are all part of the same world and invited to the same Church, with every part having its own unique problems and challenges, as well as its own strengths and advantages. On a basic level, no part of the world is exclusive or any more special than the rest in God’s eyes and therefore the Church should think the same way, not giving too much weight to the thinking present in any one region or regions. The fact that the Pope is saying the death penalty should be inadmissible everywhere at all times bothers me because the world is a big place, with very unique circumstances requiring unique solutions, and because it seems that many previous Popes saw the benefits of it and so do I and other Catholics. This is not to say that anyone wanted to see it done but what’s best isn’t always what’s prettiest. Saying that this option should be taken completely off the table just doesn’t sit right with me…

To clarify, is Pope Francis saying that we should not use the death penalty anywhere now because it has always been morally wrong or that we should strive for greater human dignity and therefore stop using the death penalty to aid in this pursuit?

FG

 

[exnihilo]

Way to build his credibility if he can’t even man up and take credit for his words.

Wonder if a “dogmatic theologian” even wrote that or did it come from some excommunicated guy or was it made up.

As this issue serves as a distraction of sorts (at least for me) for the problem of the Cardinal, it is worth noting that the Church is a very political institution. At its worst it protects people who do awful things. That is why people don’t identify themselves.

I don’t know why the Catechism would say the following:

Keep wondering. You’ll never get an explanation from anyone.

 

[tseleehw]

Yes, the tendency towards ambiguity these days occurs so often that I cannot fathom it being anything other than intentional. It gives the writer the room to backtrack if a change is not well received, or to go even further in the future once the controversy fades. I expect that there will be attempts at getting a clarification from Rome, and possibly even another dubia, but I expect the Vatican will leave us to fondle in the dark as has been the case in the last five years.

In any event, no matter what happens, this revision to the Catechism will cause much more division in a Church that has already been deeply divided over doctrinal matters the last several years.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Again, the concern I am asking about is not about human dignity or the death penalty. The concern is that this seems like the church contradicting itself on a previous teaching. This erodes trust in it’s authority and infallibility, as can already be seen by some of the posters in this thread.