Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible'

[GodSpawned]

 

[mere_christian]

So God has previously commanded evil?

 

[NuclearReceptor]

Hmm…the Church allowed something in the past, but now it’s not allowed because it’s against human dignity…if it’s against human dignity now, why wasn’t it against human dignity back then?

I don’t know the correct theological term, but is death penalty now an intrinsic evil that can never be permitted like abortion?

 

[Annie]

I am not happy about this either.

But there have been teachings over the years which have caused me to pause, and each time, I got through it.

I have not been an advocate of eliminating the DP at all. I won’t tell you what I thought of the people who advocated its elimination.

But for me, to be a Catholic is based on my acceptance of the Church’s authority and protection.

First, the CCC is not an infallible document, Altho people have striven to make it accurate. What the Pope is doing is very strange.

Second, I think in order to fully come to grips with this, it wouldd be necessary to do insider what the Church has taught about the DP.

The fact that various theologians, even those as good as Sts Augustine and Aquinas, have proposed certain ideas does not make them correct. No theologian has more authority than does the Church.

So it could be that the Church’s teaching is not changing in this instance, but that the theologians who came to their conclusions were wrong.

I do not have the resources necessary to research this issue fully, so I will simply have to wait and see what happens.

OTOH, there is this story: Library : The Monk and the Murderer | Catholic Culture

It’s possible that I, and even Augustine and Aquinas, are wrong.

 

[Wesrock]

mere_christian:

And how does the death penalty contravene the teachings of God? Because the bible i read and the church fathers i read and the catechism until today stated that the death penalty was permissible

The death penalty has been taught as a necessary evil. Without necessity it is just evil.

My concern is that the language implies the death penalty has never had necessity nor could ever be considered to have necessity, and not just because of modern advancements. I’m fine declaring that it is no longer justifiable in modern circumstances.

Hmm… pondering other nuances in favor of this development, though. Let me consider…

 

[LittleFlower]

So God has previously commanded evil?

No, he never commanded evil. We have advanced so far as a society, that we do not need it anymore—even in the previous very, very special circumstances it doesn’t apply anymore.

So the CCC is updated. Just like the CCC was updated when contraceptives became a thing, it will be updated, it is not a stagnant piece of writing.

What’s so hard to understand about that?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Maybe, but which are his commands, the one from the teachers that said its permissible , or the one from the teachers who say it is not?

Ask him and take yourself out of the situation. Can you step back from your own convictions long enough to hear what God is telling you?

 

[NuclearReceptor]

So…does this go into effect immediately? Is it binding like ex cathedra statement?

 

[exnihilo]

Hmm. Societies with abortion, widespread homosexuality, same sex marriage, and euthanasia are advanced?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

mere_christian:

And how does the death penalty contravene the teachings of God? Because the bible i read and the church fathers i read and the catechism until today stated that the death penalty was permissible

The death penalty has been taught as a necessary evil. Without necessity it is just evil.

My concern is that the language implies the death penalty has never had necessity nor could ever be considered to have necessity, and not just because of modern advancements.

Well, in and of itself, it was not necessary. What was necessary was the protection of society from harm. St. JPII made that clear.

 

[yankeesouth]

Contraceptives became a thing 2000 years ago. The Catechism was not updated.

 

[LittleFlower]

Hmm. Societies with abortion, widespread homosexuality, same sex marriage, and euthanasia are advanced?

Ah, the straw man argument. I’m going to stay on topic. Like I said above it’s about human rights, not killing is a pretty big part of human rights.

 

[Wesrock]

mere_christian:

Maybe, but which are his commands, the one from the teachers that said its permissible , or the one from the teachers who say it is not?

Ask him and take yourself out of the situation. Can you step back from your own convictions long enough to hear what God is telling you?

This seems a bit premature…

 

[mere_christian]

There are more murders today per capita in my country than at any other time. I fail to see how that is an example of a society that has advanced past the need of the death penalty.

 

[exnihilo]

That isn’t a straw man. I’m saying I don’t see how you can call our society advanced. Technologically yes. Material wealth yes. Morally no. Intellectually no.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

mere_christian:

Maybe, but which are his commands, the one from the teachers that said its permissible , or the one from the teachers who say it is not?

Ask him and take yourself out of the situation. Can you step back from your own convictions long enough to hear what God is telling you?

This seems a bit premature…

The poster said they asked God to show them if they are right or wrong. In that context, how is it premature?

 

[AveOTheotokos]

My concern is that the language implies the death penalty has never had necessity nor could ever be considered to have necessity, and not just because of modern advancements.

This issue is what I am most perplexed about. It appears that the Church has previously taught that the death penalty, while not desirable, was still a legitimate practice in certain situations.

This new revision states that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”

How was it permissible before, but not now? Either it was always a violation of the dignity of the person, or it is not.

 

[LittleFlower]

Contraceptives became a thing 2000 years ago. The Catechism was not updated.

I’m pretty sure terminology was updated, and is updated frequently.

 

[Annie]

I think perhaps what is happening is that other arguments for the DP may not be strong enough to override human dignity, but the need for defense did, and now the Pope may be saying we don’t need the DP for defense.

So the teaching is not changing altogether, like the issue of usury/interest, the situation is different.

I think we as individuals need to pray about this.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

mrsdizzyd:

mere_christian:

And how does the death penalty contravene the teachings of God? Because the bible i read and the church fathers i read and the catechism until today stated that the death penalty was permissible

The death penalty has been taught as a necessary evil. Without necessity it is just evil.

My concern is that the language implies the death penalty has never had necessity nor could ever be considered to have necessity, and not just because of modern advancements.

Well, in and of itself, it was not necessary. What was necessary was the protection of society from harm. St. JPII made that clear.

Well, some argued that it was necessarily just punishment as well, but let’s ignore that part.

I agree with St. Pope JPII. My concern is that Pope Francis’ proposed revisions rule out even the idea of protecting a society from harm. That is, absolutely never having any necessity under any circumstances or context or level of development whatsoever. It alludes to advancement in its justification, but the language of the rest basically undermines that as the actual reason.