Teaching on the Death Penalty

[Shakuhachi]

I guess I haven’t been paying attention.

Pope Francis changes teaching on death penalty, it’s ‘inadmissible’

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2018/08...s-teaching-on-death-penalty-its-inadmissible/

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If you search, you will find lots of threads on this from when he did it in August. The moderators put a moratorium on the topic for a while. It’s been lifted now.

 

[twf]

You’ll find that half of the forum here staunchly believes that the Pope is wrong here and justifies it by claiming the Catechism is non-binding…despite St. John Paul II declaring the Catechism to be a “sure norm” for the “teaching of the faith”.
Its important to note that the official text uses the word inadmissible and not “intrinsically evil”. I think we are thus bound to accept that the Magisterium does not, at this time in history, allow Catholics to support the administration of the death penalty… but we are not bound to believe that it was necessarily an evil in times past.

 

[Shakuhachi]

I thought I searched death penalty ad didn’t found anything. I am with the Pope.

 

[Joe_5859]

Here are a couple:

Pope Francis declares death penalty inadmissible in all cases World News

This should mercifully put an end to some tired arguments.

Pope Francis Ex Cathedra Death Penalty? Apologetics

I am deeply troubled with what looks like a change in a clear Catholic teaching. With Pope Francis changing the catechism’s teaching on the death penalty, does this qualify as an ex cathedra teaching? I am not so much interested in a discussion on the death penalty but what bothers me is that it seems that the Pope did in fact change church teaching. Thanks.

I believe there were probably some threads that were deleted. The discussion got pretty heated.

I wouldn’t say that Pope Francis “changed” any teaching. He really just took things one step further. Pope John Paul II said that in the world today, the cases in where the death penalty could be aqllowed “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.” Pope Francis basically just said (paraphrasing), “You know, the cases where it would be acceptable today are non-existent.”

It’s really more about the application of the teaching than the teaching itself.

 

[Genesis315]

The fixed principles on the death penalty remain the same (the state has the right to inflict the death penalty as a proportionate punishment and for purposes of security, according to the needs of the common good). Pope Francis’ change reflects a prudential judgment for our time given particular circumstances. As Cardinal Ratzinger noted on the authority of the Catechism:

“The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.”

If I had one criticism of the CCC, it is that it does not sufficiently distinguish between these things. Fr. Thomas Reese explains this as follows (note, he confuses the terms “hierarchy of truths” with “degrees of certainty”, but his point remains valid, IMO):

Fr. Reese

Third, the catechism makes no attempt to distinguish what is essential from what is less important in its teaching. Everything, from angels to the Trinity, is presented without any consideration of what theologians refer to as the hierarchy of truths. No distinction is made between infallible teaching and theological opinions. Ignoring these distinctions confuses the faithful when something they thought was essential is later placed in doubt or changed;

Cardinal Ratzinger replied:

The catechism must certainly avoid giving the impression that all the statements it contains have the same degree of certainty. It would be neither practical nor desirable constantly to indicate these degrees (de fide, de fide definita, sententia communis, etc.). Rather, the doctrine’s degree of certainty should be evident from the context from the way it is stated, from the doctrinal authority of the statement.

No one should make Pope Francis’ change into anything more than it is.

 

[leonhardprintz]

The Catholic Church’s change on its moral teachings on this issue is a grave stumbling block for me in terms of believing that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.

 

[Cathoholic]

leonhardprintz . . .

The Catholic Church’s change on its moral teachings on this issue is a grave stumbling block for me in terms of believing that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be.

It shouldn’t be leonhardprintz.

Why?

Because this is merely prudential.

How do you know?

Because they put out an accompanying document that talked about secure jails etc. in modern times.

Not a change in faith and morals handed down from Christ and the Apostles. (There are other reasons too.)

Change in prudentially carrying out this in our day. (Prudential judgments are not protected in the same way infallible teachings on faith and morals are).

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[leonhardprintz]

Because this is merely prudential.

The language doesn’t appear to be prudential at all, and its usually defended that it is in principle an evil to do the death penalty, under all circumstances.

Such a change in moral law would fly in the face of the Church’s countless positions in the past, across many saints and popes, east or west.

Its the one thing we were told over and over again never ever could happen, that the Church would change its stance on an issue of morality from calling something good, to condemning it as evil.

 

[Cathoholic]

“Inadmissable” is in the context of “today” prudentially.

In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that “today capital punishment is unacceptable . . . .

It cannot be “admissable” last week, and this week “inadmissable” if Pope Francis were talking about de fide doctrine.

So the “inadmissability” can ONLY be contemporary.

It is (an attempt at) a REAFFIRMATION of Pope John Paul II or attempts to be.

In this same prospective, Pope Francis has reaffirmed that “today capital punishment is unacceptable, however serious the condemned’s crime may have been.”[8]

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802b.html

 

[leonhardprintz]

If it is made increasingly clear over the next many years, that this is the case, then I’d be able to understand it. But I’ve seen many debates where one group of Catholics condemn other Catholics over this issue. Claiming that the death penalty is a pro-life issue, which is really mixing prudential with things that are evil in principle.

 

[Cathoholic]

leonhardprintz . . .

Claiming that the death penalty is a pro-life issue

The death penalty IS a pro-life issue and should not be carried out unless unavoidable and by Governments.

But self-defense is a pro-life issue too.

So there are times when society if forced to defend itself, defends itself.

When this occurs, it is NOT the fault of the Government.

It is the fault of the bad guy. The perpetrator. The aggressor (not the defender).

. . . . “the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose action brought it about. . . . .” — Pope Saint John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae (section 55).

Pope Francis took a section of the Catechism that taught developed de fide doctrine, and replaced it with his own pastoral prudential initiative here.

And he can do that! I am OK with that in principle.

I affirm what was in the Catechism BEFORE Pope Francis changed it. . . . AND . . . I affirm what was in the Catechism AFTER Pope Francis changed it too.

 

[leonhardprintz]

The death penalty IS a pro-life issue and should not be carried out unless unavoidable and by Governments.

I believe comparing it to abortion is a mistake. That is basically saying that taking life, is always and universally wrong. As abortion is always and universally wrong.

Pope Francis took a section of the Catechism that taught developed de fide doctrine, and replaced it with his own pastoral prudential initiative here.

And he can do that! I am OK with that in principle.

I find it hard to square with Catholic teaching, and I disagree with you that its obvious that its only to be read as “prudential”.

It was obvious with St. John Paul II, because he clarified his position as purely prudential. And Benedict XVI clarified that Catholics could disagree on this issue, and objected to the comparison between abortion and the death penalty.

Abortion and the death penalty, if the latter is wrong, are wrong for two different reasons.

What Pope Francis says, and his rewriting of the CC, appears to me muddled, confused and its seriously making me question the promises about the Church not defecting from the truth.

(saw you edited your post, so I added this response)

I affirm what was in the Catechism BEFORE Pope Francis changed it. . . . AND . . . I affirm what was in the Catechism AFTER Pope Francis changed it too.

All the power to you if you can do that. Its harder for me.

 

[Cathoholic]

I believe comparing it to abortion is a mistake

But I didn’t compare it to abortion.

I said it was a pro-life issue.

As abortion is always and universally wrong.

You are correct!

Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Capital punishment is NOT an intrinsic evil.

 

[Genesis315]

Assuming your interpretation is correct, that this is a not just a fact-based conclusion (a prudential judgment), it still doesn’t mean the Church has erred. See my earlier post where Cardinal Ratzinger speaks of the degrees of certainty and that doctrines in the Catechism contain no more weight than what they already possessed.

In this case, this entry in the Catechism is drawn from a random address of Pope Francis. It is not a definitive, irreformable judgment (so it is not infallible). The contrary position has not been definitively condemned. Holding it does not exclude from the communion of the Church.

Because of all that, Pope Francis could simply be wrong. A Pope being wrong does not mean the Church has defected from the faith. And, given the controversy, his opinion has clearly not been received with docility by the whole Church (contrary to centuries of unanimity to the contrary position), which is further proof that the Church has not defected.

If we were to apply it a theological note, at the very best it would not even be “probable” since there is more weight against it than for it. The denial, therefore, would involve no sin.

Anyway, this is all assuming your interpretation. Given the history of this passage in the catechism, and the history and justification given to this change, I think it should still be interpreted as a prudential judgment subject to revision as the circumstances change.

 

[Cathoholic]

I find it hard to square with Catholic teaching, and I disagree with you that its obvious that its only to be read as “prudential”.

That’s OK. You do not have to agree with me. I am fine with that.

(Capital punishment cannot be “admissible” last week,
and “inadmissible” in THE SENSE of faith and morals this week.)

It can ONLY BE prudential.

 

[leonhardprintz]

This is closer to the position that I take. Though it doesn’t sit well with me, because of how much we’re told that the CCC is to be taken a guideline for your beliefs. And that Pope Francis said that the death penalty is inadmisable because and I quote “because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and he’s calling for its universal eradication, worldwide.

This language is a lot stronger than merely saying, like St. John Paul II, that on prudential grounds, given the possibility of life imprisonment (which Pope Francis is also against), the death penalty should not be supported.

And given that statement, about its attack on a persons dignity, that’s what makes it look very much like an intrinsic condemnation of the death penalty. For all time. For all reasons. People’s dignity don’t change.

 

[Cathoholic]

leonhardprintz . . .

What Pope Francis says . . . appears to me muddled, confused . . .

I am not going to comment (here on CAF) on
Pope Francis skills or lack of skills
as being a clear teacher
or Pope Francis’ abilities, or inabilities, or refusals to clarify, what some take as “muddled” and “confused” teachings.

 

[Genesis315]

Unfortunately, it is incoherent in a lot of ways. For example, it mentions it is taking into account a new understanding of the significance of penal sanctions that is being applied in most places, and yet, in the very preceding paragraph (2266) the more traditional significance for punishment is still given. In addition, death is still presented as an expiatory temporal punishment in par. 1473.

 

[leonhardprintz]

I am not going to comment on Pope Francis
skills or lack of skills as being a clear teacher (here on CAF)
or Pope Francis’ abilities or inabilities or refusals to clarify what some take as “muddled” and “confused” teachings.

I didn’t ask you to comment, so why did you post this?

I am just honestly explaining my problems. Pope Francis’s writings don’t look clear to me on the issue at all. If I did read them, the way I’d read them outright, then I’d claim he was outright changing doctrine. Because of the reasons that I listed.

Since I’m a Catholic, I’d much rather just believe that things make sense in a way, even if its not clear, and that it’s just me who can’t penetrate his writings, or that they’re just not clear on the issue at all.

I’m also not the only one who agrees that this Pope isn’t the clearest writer in the world.