Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible'

Status
Not open for further replies.
I asked the same question earlier, and I do not see any language in the new texts that suggests that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. It could not be declared to be so, otherwise we would be saying that God has committed and approved of evil acts in the scriptures. The problem is the letter from the CDF rather clumsily tries to argue that there are no circumstances in the world today that allow the use of CP, which seems to be written from a purely western point of view and is factually inaccurate.
 
There are less murders in my country. One reason why is medical advances. Attempts to kill people that would have succeeded in the past fail to now. That must be considered in this discussion.
 
mere_christian said:
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.
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. If you look at the link I posted the UK is currently on the downward trend of murders per capita. I would scroll down until you see the graph, the UK has lower murder rate than in 1991, where it was ticking upwards.
 
I see…if we no longer require the death penalty to prevent further harm because societal changes/advancements/whatever you want to call it, then I can see why lack of necessity for death penalty could make it inadmissible.

But, not surprisingly, there’s great confusion about the intent and language and nuance of Pope Francis’ statement.
 
Well considering I’ve been raised a protestant all my, life, and I’ve been open to realizing many of my previous positions were wrong, I’d say i’m open to correction. But sad truth is, anyway you slice it this is a change in the churches position. Maybe i’ll end up along side you but until then, i will be open to correction but still hold my convictions until they are proved false by God or whoever he chooses to correct me.
 
Hopefully, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, all this will be sorted out and made more clear.

I’m just worried that people will point to this and say, “Aha! See, the Catholic Church changes. She will eventually allow [fill in the blank, e.g., gay marriage].”
 
One thing that is hard to understand is that “society” has in fact not advanced in many, many places. Do you know what it means for people to wield power and be a threat to society even from high security prisons? And yet that is a reality in several Latin American or African countries today.

The Pope is strangely teaching from a first world perspective. I was a fan of JPII’s approach precisely because it allowed for the differences in situations among different societies.
 
Wesrock said:
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 whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I think what Pope Francis is doing here is in line with St. JPII goal of ultimately abolishing the death penalty. There are around 50 countries where the death penalty is still practiced. In many, if not most of those, other means are available for protecting society from harm. At this point, it is difficult to see how anyone could support the death penalty as necessary.
 
Last edited:
I would like to think that we, as a banded together humanity, would work towards getting rid of all human rights violations.

The argument for the death penalty happening right now, is similar to the arguments that people make for abortion.

“There might be some instances where we would need to kill a grown person / baby.”

No, there aren’t.

Are we allowed to abort foetuses who have been conceived during rape? No.
Are we allowed to kill the rapist? No.
 
What are those means? In the US even in prison prisoners have hurt or killed people. What is the means we are missing here?
 
mrsdizzyd said:
At this point, it is difficult to see how anyone could support the death penalty as necessary.
Click to expand...
In Central America, drug lords have taken over the governmental infrastructure to the point that they run as a parallel government. Many of the people continue their work even from high security jails. These countries do not have the means of protecting their citizens using confinement alone. It is patently false, wrong, therefore, to state that such countries have the means necessary to protect its people without the use of the death penalty.
 
exnihilo said:
What are those means? In the US even in prison prisoners have hurt or killed people. What is the means we are missing here?
Click to expand...
We aren’t missing any means here as evidenced by all the states who have outlawed the death penalty. Honestly, the USA is perhaps the least persuasive argument in favor of the death penalty.
 
una_ecclesia said:
40.png
mrsdizzyd:
At this point, it is difficult to see how anyone could support the death penalty as necessary.
Click to expand...
In Central America, drug lords have taken over the governmental infrastructure to the point that they run as a parallel government. Many of the people continue their work even from high security jails. These countries do not have the means of protecting their citizens using confinement alone. It is patently false, wrong, therefore, to state that such countries have the means necessary to protect its people without the use of the death penalty.
Click to expand...
If the drug lords are that much in control, who is ensuring that the use of the death penalty is just?
 
Yes we are. You said we can protect society from harm. But even in our prisons the convicts harm people. So what means can we employ to protect society from these people?
 
Alright, let’s try a “pro” position.
There is nothing intrinsically unjust about the death penalty for serious crimes, and the use of the death penalty can be, in theory, justified for numerous reasons. However, as our understanding of human psychology and mental illness has improved, and as our understanding of the errors made by the state in carrying out the death penalty has developed, we can state that while the state in theory does have the authority to employ the just use of the death penalty, it is clear now that throughout its history and into the foreseeable future the state does not have the means of carrying it out justly, especially within a modern context, though the state’s track record is hard to justify even in less developed societies. Therefore it’s the position of the Church that, as our scientific understanding of the person, psychology, and the state’s practices has evolved, it must advise that the death penalty is inadmissible for practical purposes, even if under theoretical circumstances it could be justified.
The cynical part of me doesn’t think we’ll see any such elaboration on how it can be consistent with past teachings, though. Which, imo, will just lead to confusion.

And even still, I’m not sure if the above pro explanation can be reconciled with God commanding the use of the death penalty explicitly as part of the law in the Pentateuch, unless we acknowledge “but for the hardness of their hearts” and the commandments as setting clear limitations on when they should be applied. But I’m not a Biblical scholar nor do I have the knowledge to compare my above “reconciliation” to past magisterial teachings or even to know if this is part of the actual teaching behind this revision. But I feel like, if there is a development of doctrine, then someone who is knowledgeable and has the proper authority should be addressing all of the points of past teaching, scriptural passages, and so on.
 
Last edited:
exnihilo said:
Yes we are. You said we can protect society from harm. But even in our prisons the convicts harm people. So what means can we employ to protect society from these people?
Click to expand...
The means already in place because they are removed from society…
 
I’m concerned not necessarily by volume of personal, emotional support for this revision, but by the lack of apologetical explanation and care for how this reconciles with past teaching.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it is unfortunate that he does not explain things, which throws us back on our own resources, which are often insufficient.
 
When you consider the theological approaches the Church has taken with regards to the death penalty (and not just issues of circumstance), it is not necessarily the case that the Church was gung-ho about it, even early on, but it did see it as, under very specific circumstances, a legitimate tool of the state that can be used for the common good. This is why you see in the Catechism of 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.”

However, the early Church was also queasy about DP, but whenever it appealed against its use, it never did so on the grounds of human dignity, but rather on the grounds of mercy. The DP done right is just, but for the sake of one’s soul, mercy becomes a factor as well in the Christian state. To make DP, even under the strict circumstances, a violation of justice and not just a lack of mercy, would contradict the teachings of the Church, and not simply be a development of its teaching.

The main contention here is not even between people who are gung-ho about DP and those who call it a human rights violation. It is between people who adhere even to JPII’s formulation, and vs some of the approaches that Francis and those after him are taking in transforming DP into an intrinsic evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top