Pope revises catechism to say death penalty is 'inadmissible'

[yankeesouth]

The point is they might want to look at the wording. Saying that one of the reasons the death penalty is no longer needed because the threat to society has been eliminated is not factual. Many prisoners and prison guards would not agree.

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

And of course people still manage to escape from these effective systems of detention.

 

[mere_christian]

Well, that is the question, actually, or at least the questions are (1) whether this is an extraordinary teaching of the magisterium and a real development and (2) what apologetical line of defense we’re to take with this in defending this as not contradicting established doctrine/dogma.

Speaking as a protestant who was moving towards Catholicism, let me tell you , you will have a great deal of trouble defending that position, at least to non-Catholics. I’ve spent at least the last 3 years of my life defending the Catholic church to my former catholic mother and grandmother… and this has rocked my position … and the years of progress an coming to terms with certain positions of catholic dogma which although were different to my own i could point to their antiquity and support in the church fathers… but this has opened up those questions again in my mind, rightly or wrongly. But at least for me, it has done tremendous damage.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

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.

Your pro argument is very persuasive.

Regarding mosaic law I have two thoughts: firstly, even within Jewish tradition, these punishments weren’t necessarily considered binding, and secondly, how were these laws transformed by the new covenant? Paul in Corinthians cites the OT death penalty as justification for excommunication from the church. There is a typological relationship here rather than a literal application of the law word for word.

 

[Cruciferi]

Eh, we still have Just War Theory and The Right to Self Defense. :man_shrugging:t2:

 

[AveOTheotokos]

Well, that is the question, actually, or at least the questions are (1) whether this is an extraordinary teaching of the magisterium and a real development and (2) what apologetical line of defense we’re to take with this in defending this as not contradicting established doctrine/dogma.

Exactly. Has the Church Magisterium previously authoritatively defined a legitimate right of states to the death penalty, and if so, is this contradicting that?

 

[una_ecclesia]

There are NT passages that also seem to situate the DP as legitimate, however. OT is not the Church’s only source about the DP… It’s probably not even the primary source.

 

[Joe_5859]

But sad truth is, anyway you slice it this is a change in the churches position.

What Pope Francis is saying here doesn’t strike me so much as a “change” rather than simply taking what John Paul II said a step further.

John Paul II said that cases where the death penalty would be permissible in the present age (with our present means of incarceration) “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” Ever since then, most bishops and theologians I have heard speak on the matter have basically said that the conditions where it would be allowed are—in point of fact—“non-existent.” Pope Francis is more or less just confirming this.

I know some are concerned in thinking that the Church has now done a 180 on the issue, but I really don’t see it that way. The bishops in the U.S. have been saying pretty much the same thing for the last several decades.

It’s really not that different from the Church’s position on slavery. For centuries, it was tolerated, but not officially endorsed, and now it is condemned. This seems very similar to me.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

The late Cardinal Avery Dulles, while opposed to Capital Punishment himself for practical reasons, argued that the Church could not change it’s teaching on the moral legitimacy of the death penalty which it had taught for two thousand years, as same would open the door to changing it’s position on other issues previously considered non-negotiable (abortion, euthanasia, contraception, male only clergy, the Divinity of Christ, the Eucharist, and Papal Infallibility). I fear this change is poorly thought out and creates a slippery slope for the jettisoning of all the values the Church has taught for millenia.

 

[LittleFlower378]

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.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

That is way different from eliminating it, as the death penalty alone does.

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?

 

[KMG]

What Francis has done here is not infallible. That’s really all that matters.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

There are NT passages that also seem to situate the DP as legitimate, however.

Can you provide examples?

 

[Peebo]

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

 

[Joe_5859]

I have great respect for Cardinal Dulles, but I also heard him argue that limbo was part of Catholic teaching, too. This was before the release of the International Theological Commission’s document in 2007, though. Sometimes theologians don’t get it right.

 

[mere_christian]

That would assume that John Paul II’s positions weren’t already changes from the churches earlier position to begin with, they do certainly seem a significant step from from Augustine and Aquinas. Either way a change whether in increments or in large bold steps is a change none the less.

 

[Cruciferi]

I assume that you don’t believe in either…

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Faith and morals…

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

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.

Your pro argument is very persuasive.

I am trying to work through this, not just be opposed.

Regarding mosaic law I have two thoughts: firstly, even within Jewish tradition, these punishments weren’t necessarily considered binding,

Agreed, in practical application, they weren’t carried out to the letter. They weren’t understood as being absolutely literal or binding in that sense.

[A]nd secondly, how were these laws transformed by the new covenant? Paul in Corinthians cites the OT death penalty as justification for excommunication from the church. There is a typological relationship here rather than a literal application of the law word for word.

Agreed. Though we still have a case of it being clearly commanded as part of the Law, and it doesn’t appear to be just a constraint, but a positive command. Even if not as absolute as it sounds to those unfamiliar with it, that still presents an issue. Along with commands to the Israelites to wage war on Canaanites and others. Certainly there’s historical context, and the Israelites understanding and interpreting their own history in a religious sense, but we seem unable to avoid the point that God has positively authorized the use of humans to carry out his justice by killing serious offenders, and that this is distinct from murder. I am not putting my foot into the sand and declaring it insurmountable, but there are issues that require more than simply stating “our understanding has changed” or “doctrine has developed” and “people have an inviolable right not to be executed by the state for serious crimes against humanity and God.”

 

[mere_christian]

Romans 13:1-4, “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.”

Acts 25:10-11, "But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know. 11 “If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

First Paul states that the state has the right to use the sword to punish evil doers, Then he acknowledges that there are crimes worthy of death and that the state has the right to in act that punishment even though he deny’s being guilty of such a crime he does not attack the principle of the death penalty itself infact he supports it.

 

[Joe_5859]

Sure. But Augustine and Aquinas—as influential and awesome as they are—are not the voice of the Magisterium. They are very likely the two greatest theologians in Church history. And their works have helped advance the articulation of the deposit of the faith in monumental ways. But they are not the final measuring stick we look to when deciding what is part of the deposit of faith.

I suppose I made my peace long ago with the fact that circumstances where recourse to the death penalty would be permissible didn’t really exist anymore. So for me this doesn’t seem like a big leap.

I should brush up on Newman’s Development of Christian Doctrine to see how to better conceptualize this.