Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible'

[Peebo]

Douay-Rheims Bible
But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.

You seem to be confused…that passage of scripture has nothing to do with killing children

 

[whichwaytogo47]

Didn’t you know? The Pope’s authority to teach on matters off faith and morals only extends as far as conservative politics. At least in the US.

Or an absolutist intolerance towards such. The church has social justice teaching which means to be charitable, which means equal justice under the law, and believes in the dignity of the human person. That said, the church is not or should not be in a position to say that a conservative view is necessarily antithetical to the church’s mission.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t see any contradiction, nor do I see a big change from the last iteration by Pope St. JPII.

As I and a couple other people have said, we see much more dramatic changes in the sections of the Catechism dealing with Protestants. If I were going to get all fired up over a purported “change” to the Catechism or to teaching, I’d be looking more at that and a lot less at this.

 

[yankeesouth]

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?

The only explanation I read is that we own guns and can presumably handle it ourselves…

 

[whichwaytogo47]

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.

I don’t think that the teaching has changed that much. Church discipline believes, currently, that since a criminal can be locked up that the death penalty is not necessary. I think from a divine stance, the church is correct but from an imperfect human stance, not so much. In other words, the church is correct in theory that if a criminal is properly detained that they cannot harm but in reality, they can harm and thus the death penalty may have a need even in the most secure first world countries or the most paranoid third-world countries.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You seem to be confused…that passage of scripture has nothing to do with killing children

The incorrect assertion in at least 2 posts on this thread that Jesus in his “millstone” speech was advocating executing those who kill children is a giant advertisement for how people have trouble interpreting the Bible on their own.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

We can seek to abolish the use of the death penalty and seek to reform the justice system and the application of mercy, while still recognizing the state’s legitimate authority to utilize it. The Church has previously stated this position, but this revision seems to contradict that.

To say that

"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.”

seems to no longer assent to the legitimate authority of the state to utilize it, as has been previously stated by the Church, like in this statement from Trent:

Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment- is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

It is in this that I see the contradiction.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

The only explanation I read is that we own guns and can presumably handle it ourselves…

And the church really shouldn’t get in the way of one’s free-will except to say if one’s choices are right/wrong.

The State absolutely has the right to administer the death penalty as a form of justice, but the Church has the right to say if it’s right/wrong to apply it, both in general and in specific cases.

 

[Lazerlike42]

I think that this is one of those cases where the Spirit has been at work so the wording just keeps it consistent with prior teaching.

It’s always been the teaching of the Church that the death penalty isn’t intrinsically evil or immoral, and the new text does not say that it is either of those. In more recent times, the Church has said that while the death penalty is not intrinsically evil and is possible depending on circumstances, the circumstances of the modern world mean that it is almost never justly imposed.

Now this new text comes across as if perhaps some motivation in it’s crafting was to say that the death penalty is in and of itself contrary to the dignity of the person - which would mean it would be immoral and intrinsically evil. However, it seems to me that this isn’t what it actually says.

The text lists first three considerations:

1. A growing understanding of human dignity in the light of crimes
2. A new understanding of the way governments impose sentences
3. Better prison systems exist such that the circumstances which would justify the use of the death penalty are not present in the modern world

Then it says, “Consequently the Church teaches,” or, as the French translation renders it, “That is why the Church teaches” that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

In other words, the reason that the Church is teaching the death penalty is inadmissible are all three of these considerations, the third of which (and one might argue the second of which, as well) was already given in the old text as the reason that the death penalty would not be permissible in most cases.

Then consider the choice of word: “inadmissible.” This doesn’t mean immoral, evil, intrinsically evil, etc., but feels almost like a regulatory word more than anything.

All together, what the new text, carefully considered, actually seems to say is that because of present circumstances, the death penalty is not justified or permissible, which would not be inconsistent with previous Church teaching. Now if you’re thinking that this is a lot of parsing and words being thrown around to read the text in a consistent way, I don’t disagree. In fact, that’s kind of my point: as we have seen in other cases throughout history, sometimes the Spirit’s protection works out as a sort of very particular way that some potentially problematic statement is worded (although the Catechism is not an infallible document anyways). I don’t regard this new text as a spectacular or great thing, but only as something which seems to me has just barely by the Grace of God managed to avoid saying something problematic, something which perhaps somebody involved with it’s development even wanted it to say.

I also think that regardless of whether we can read it in an orthodox way, the change is likely to tragically lead to more and more of the sort of thing that mere_christian said above:

“As 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…”

 

[Ridgerunner]

The only explanation I read is that we own guns and can presumably handle it ourselves…

Ha! Excellent comment!

 

[whichwaytogo47]

“As 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…”

It is free from teaching error, but it’s not perfect. The biggest problem with Catholicism is the Catholics within it and that’s because of Adam and Eve (original sin) that caused this imperfection. Church discipline not doctrine does change with each Pope and is the reason why infallible teaching must be rare and must be in allegiance with the works of Jesus. Being astoundingly for or opposed to the death penalty would violate this thus it must be a practice of discipline not doctrine and especially not infallibility.

That said, the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church, but it will go thru trying times at time.

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Do these conditions exist everywhere though? This justification seems to universally nullify the legitimate authority of all civil authorities to utilize the death penalty based on it being an attack and violation of human dignity.

If it is inadmissible due to having this character, how does that have anything to do with societal changes? And if those changes are not universal or necessarily permanent, how can that change the effect that the death penalty has on human dignity?

 

[angel12]

Maybe you need a logic lesson.

I’ll just consider this source of this post.

 

[tseleehw]

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.

I don’t think that the teaching has changed that much. Church discipline believes, currently, that since a criminal can be locked up that the death penalty is not necessary. I think from a divine stance, the church is correct but from an imperfect human stance, not so much. In other words, the church is correct in theory that if a criminal is properly detained that they cannot harm but in reality, they can harm and thus the death penalty may have a need even in the most secure first world countries or the most paranoid third-world countries.

Just to piggyback off of this thought…maybe what is needed is…discernment! Maybe instead of adopting a purely black and white approach of saying that capital punishment is always wrong, we should be open to the workings of the Holy Spirit and stop being so rigid and legalistic with regards to capital punishment. Perhaps the “God of surprises” will lead us to more creative solutions that recognize the reality in which we live and that a world without capital punishment is really just more of an ideal rather than a hard and fast “rule” that only the Pharisees would insist upon following without deviation. Executioners can still take communion, right? They’re only following their conscience, after all.

 

[whichwaytogo47]

They’re only following their conscience, after all.

That can get dangerous. It’s definitely important to have an informed conscience. That said, your paragraph is well-stated about the realities of the imperfect world we live in rather than the ideal world where this would be unnecessary. In Heaven, there is no sin and we glorify God. It’s the perfect world, what we don’t have here.

Those who practice abortions at Planned Parenthood or even the Nazis in Germany follow/ed their conscience.

 

[Genesis315]

Given the apparent unanimity up until this point, until Rome or a General Council provides a definitive judgment or I see some convincing justification for this novelty, for my faith I will, in the words of St. Vincent, “cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.” As Jesus says, it is better to build one’s house on the sure, rigid rock, then on shifting sands to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. The successor of St. Peter, who is supposed to be such a rigid rock himself, should not even give the appearance of introducing novelty.

 

[exnihilo]

While that may not be wise it is legitimate to consider the wisdom of clouding the moral landscape concerning this issue. The people you call rad-trad are I assume actually trying to live by Catholic teaching and respect the Pope. Those are good things. That is why it is wise for Popes to be careful in their pronouncements.

 

[Michael96]

Amen. Jesus came to heal and save the world. Thank God

 

[tseleehw]

Given the apparent unanimity up until this point, until Rome or a General Council provides a definitive judgment or I see some convincing justification for this novelty, for my faith I will, in the words of St. Vincent, “cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.” As Jesus says, it is better to build one’s house on the sure, rigid rock, then on shifting sands to be blown about by every wind of doctrine. The successor of St. Peter, who is supposed to be such a rigid rock himself, should not even give the appearance of introducing novelty.

This will probably be the prevailing attitude among most orthodox Catholics. Unless some truly convincing argument comes along justifying this change (doubtful) then I think most will treat this change like they treat the controversial footnote in AL: assuming that since a change in doctrine was not explicitly stated, that there was no change in Church doctrine. Ambiguity works both ways.

 

[emilysue]

Because now we have many different programmes and a better ability to care for those who would have in the past been executed. We needn’t take a life, as we are able to “punish” in different ways.

I have long believed that this is true in western countries. In the USA and wealthy countries, we have supermax prisons to protect society from those who in the past would have been executed. Indeed, the Catechism was clear on this before – if there is any other way to protect society, then the death penalty was not morally acceptable. But now the Catechism says that the death penalty is never morally admissible.

Never? What of the countries where the prisons are woefully inadequate to protect society from murderers? Shall we have one catechism for the poor countries, and one for wealthy countries? Are Catholics in a rural area of a third-world country morally obligated to oppose the death penalty for, say, a serial killer, when the jails in their country or region are not secure enough to guarantee that they will be safe from the serial killer? If they support the death penalty for the serial killer or any other murderer/rapist/serious criminal, are they heretics or mortal sinners?

Those are serious questions, FWIW.