The English Catechism: Is 2263 on Killing mistaken?

[LongingSoul]

I agree it at first seems out of place.
However I think it is making the point that all blood (life) primarily belongs to God (is sacred).

He alone is Lord of life and may legitimately and directly will the death of whomsoever he chooses…

While there may be very limited instances in which States and individuals may legitimately choose to kill another … such rights are not absolute, it has the tone of reluctance and a last resort and that right is heavily fenced with conditions that must be taken very seriously.

Amongst those conditions the CCC appears to be adamant that
(i) such lawful killing may never be directly intended.
(ii) it must only be for the equally worthy purpose of self-defence (be that of oneself or the State).

Exactly right. I live in a state in this world that rejected the death penalty nearly a century ago and doesn’t conceive of it as a ‘commanded punishment’ given by God. It serves a practical purpose for the common good and the Church’s position affirms that it can be legitimate in certain circumstances. The current world trend is to reject the death penalty as detrimental to the common good and the Church clearly affirms that that trend is godly.

To reject the Church teaching in favour of a ‘divine’ ideology of punishment is to abandon the traditional teachings of the Church which have upheld punishment as of medicinal value to human beings and in service to the common good.

 

[Ender]

Are we to conclude that 2267 (first para) is a false statement? - are you saying it gives an erroneous statement of traditional church teaching?

I believe it is mistaken, yes. My opinion is irrelevant, but this one should be taken a bit more seriously.*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery S.J. Professor Pontifical Gregorian Univ. Rome)
You can decide for yourself. Do you consider these two definitions the same or different?*the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

***The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. **The first contains the restriction, the second does not. Incredibly they were written just five years apart by the same people. The first passage is in the 1997 version that came out after Evangelium Vitae (1995) while the second passage is in the 1992 version of the same catechism. What changed between 1992 and 1997 was the publication of EV. What could not have changed, however, was what actually constitutes the church’s traditional teaching on capital punishment.

The thing is, one can reference the writings of a half dozen earlier popes, at least that many earlier catechisms, and all the writings of the the Doctors and Fathers of the church without coming up with a single example of anyone saying capital punishment is permitted only when necessary for defense. There is literally nothing to support the assertion made in the 1997 version.

Ender

 

[Rau]

I believe it is mistaken, yes. My opinion is irrelevant, but this one should be taken a bit more seriously.*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery S.J. Professor Pontifical Gregorian Univ. Rome)
You can decide for yourself. Do you consider these two definitions the same or different?*the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

***The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. **The first contains the restriction, the second does not. Incredibly they were written just five years apart by the same people. The first passage is in the 1997 version that came out after Evangelium Vitae (1995) while the second passage is in the 1992 version of the same catechism. What changed between 1992 and 1997 was the publication of EV. What could not have changed, however, was what actually constitutes the church’s traditional teaching on capital punishment.

The thing is, one can reference the writings of a half dozen earlier popes, at least that many earlier catechisms, and all the writings of the the Doctors and Fathers of the church without coming up with a single example of anyone saying capital punishment is permitted only when necessary for defense. There is literally nothing to support the assertion made in the 1997 version.

Ender

Interesting. Yet, we how have no less than an instruction in the 2nd para of 2267 to not use capital punishment.

 

[Rau]

I believe it is mistaken, yes. My opinion is irrelevant, but this one should be taken a bit more seriously.*The most reasonable conclusion to draw from this discussion is that, once again, the Catechism is simply wrong from an historical point of view. Traditional Catholic teaching did not contain the restriction enunciated by Pope John Paul II. *(Kevin L. Flannery S.J. Professor Pontifical Gregorian Univ. Rome)
You can decide for yourself. Do you consider these two definitions the same or different?*the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

***The traditional teaching of the church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. **The first contains the restriction, the second does not. Incredibly they were written just five years apart by the same people. The first passage is in the 1997 version that came out after Evangelium Vitae (1995) while the second passage is in the 1992 version of the same catechism. What changed between 1992 and 1997 was the publication of EV. What could not have changed, however, was what actually constitutes the church’s traditional teaching on capital punishment.

The thing is, one can reference the writings of a half dozen earlier popes, at least that many earlier catechisms, and all the writings of the the Doctors and Fathers of the church without coming up with a single example of anyone saying capital punishment is permitted only when necessary for defense. There is literally nothing to support the assertion made in the 1997 version.

Ender

You appear to be repudiating what you said in post #55:
“I don’t believe the church has been inconsistent in her teaching, nor do I believe that what JPII said, or what the catechism says, conflicts with what the church always has - and still does - teach. My position is that the interpretations made by my opponents, if they were correct, would mean that the church has been inconsistent and has in fact repudiated her traditional teaching. My objections have not been with what the church teaches but that what she has said recently has been misunderstood”. (Ender)

 

[Ender]

Cont…

The first para of 2267 purports to be a factual statement, so should not be judgemental in nature. The 2nd paragraph, far from being a judgement, is in fact “instructional” in nature. I agree that the last paragraph is judgemental, and fairly explicitly so, but it adds nothing material beyond the previous para.

I have addressed the first paragraph, and we are agreed about the third so let’s look at the second.*"If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. *
The real problem with this is that it concerns itself solely with a secondary objective of punishment, that of protection, while disregarding the primary objective which was just defined in 2266. The state has not just the right but the obligation (again, from 2266) to apply a punishment that is just. There is neither a right nor a duty to apply one that protects.

As far as whether capital punishment conforms to man’s dignity, you can look at this in one of two ways. Whether this is a prudential belief that it contributes to the culture of death mentality so common in modern societies and so ought not be used, or that its use is in fact contrary to man’s inherent dignity. The second explanation can hardly be correct inasmuch as the church, in supporting a state’s right to use it, would have been guilty of supporting something intrinsically contrary to human dignity. Also, given that she acknowledges its use is still valid in some circumstances, if capital punishment was truly contrary to that dignity, how could there be any circumstance that would justify it?

I don’t really understand 2260, but I doubt it is advocating and “eye for an eye”, do you?

Yes, that is exactly what it means. Not literally, but this is the meaning of commensurate punishment. But 2260 is more specific than that. It is in fact one of the two passages on which the church’s position on capital punishment is based. Since “This teaching remains necessary for all time” what is the reason for believing it no longer applies?

2266 I don’t read this to say that murderers should be killed, rapists raped, or that those who disfigure others should be disfigured.

It isn’t saying that. It makes a number of separate points: the state has a duty to punish, the primary objective of punishment is retribution, and the severity of the punishment must be commensurate with the severity of the crime.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Cont…

I am yet to discover what has been traditionally taught. The first para of 2267 is the only authoritative document I have on that point.

I’ve already cited the 1992 catechism and the Baltimore Catechism, here are some others. *“It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor.” *(Catechism of Pius X 1905)

Q. 484. Is it not lawful to kill in any cause?
*A. Yes, in a just war, or when public justice requires it: “For the magistrate beareth not the sword without cause.” Rom. i. 4. *(Douay Catechism 1649)

*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. *(Catechism of Trent 1566)

*It is evident that God who is the Author of laws, has every right to inflict death on account of sin. For “the wages of sin is death.” Neither does His minister sin in inflicting that punishment. The sense, therefore, of “Thou shalt not kill” is that one shall not kill by one’s own authority. *(Catechism of St. Thomas c 1260)
Ender

 

[Ender]

You appear to be repudiating what you said in post #55:
“I don’t believe the church has been inconsistent in her teaching, nor do I believe that what JPII said, or what the catechism says, conflicts with what the church always has - and still does - teach. My position is that the interpretations made by my opponents, if they were correct, would mean that the church has been inconsistent and has in fact repudiated her traditional teaching. My objections have not been with what the church teaches but that what she has said recently has been misunderstood”. (Ender)

I believe that church doctrine acknowledges the propriety of using capital punishment for grave crimes.

I also believe that JPII and the catechism are giving prudential reasons against its use in modern societies.

The doctrine is that it may be used, the judgment is that it should not be used. These do not conflict. The church has always recognized that practical reasons could determine what punishment should or should not be applied.

If one interprets 2267 as doctrine then it seems fairly obvious that it conflicts with what was taught before, and that’s a problem that I don’t see has any viable explanation.

Ender

 

[Rau]

Ender, do you believe Catholics are obligated to accede to the instruction given to them that they are to refrain (NB: my catechism says “authority will limit itself”, not “should”, though arguably “shall” is the correct grammar in the context of 2267 para 2) from using CP, except where necessary for defence?

 

[Ender]

Ender, do you believe Catholics are obligated to accede to the instruction given to them that they are to refrain (NB: my catechism says “authority will limit itself”, not “should”, though arguably “shall” is the correct grammar in the context of 2267 para 2) from using CP, except where necessary for defence?

No, I believe 2267 is a prudential judgment, not a new doctrine.As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm…that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.
Ender

 

[Rau]

No, I believe 2267 is a prudential judgment, not a new doctrine.As to the Pope’s assertion that the death penalty should today be rare, I would reaffirm…that this is to be understood as an exercise of the Pope’s prudential judgment. “Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.
Ender

That interpretation stands at odds with the words written. The 2nd para of 2267 is an instruction, not a judgement. Perhaps you want to read it as judgement to avoid what otherwise appears to be a conflict in teaching?

The 3rd para, judging that the death penalty should be rare is indeed judgement and of little relevance to the issue of conforming ourselves to the instruction in the prior paragraph.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

That interpretation stands at odds with the words written. The 2nd para of 2267 is an instruction, not a judgement. Perhaps you want to read it as judgement to avoid what otherwise appears to be a conflict in teaching?

The 3rd para, judging that the death penalty should be rare is indeed judgement and of little relevance to the issue of conforming ourselves to the instruction in the prior paragraph.

Agreed. This is the natural reading of the text of 2267 which does afterall begin with “The traditional teaching of the Church…”

Your summary above is well balanced. I also agree the last (3rd) paragraph (the personal practical judgement of JPII is not needed to make the point any further. He simply applies the “traditional teaching” to modern conditions, different from times past.

I personally believe the last 100 years has seen a refinement/clarification of a “muddied” traditional teaching (so somewhat agreeing with Ender re the “claims” that some past theologies made wrt Retrib Justice and CP).

But if the CCC says its doctrines has always been traditional teaching then I am fine with that. Though Ender prob won’t agree with this Magisterial view of the history of the traditional teaching.

Ender, your way out of that dilemma may be that what you believe was rock solid traditional justification for CP (basis of RJustice) may not have been solid doctrine but an admixture of doctrine and prudential judgements of the medieval period made to look like doctrine.

It doesn’t really matter.
The CCC does seem to be clear now.

 

[LongingSoul]

Ender, your way out of that dilemma may be that what you believe was rock solid traditional justification for CP (basis of RJustice) may not have been solid doctrine but an admixture of doctrine and prudential judgements of the medieval period made to look like doctrine.

That is definitely Ender’s way out of his dilemma. We currently have the reminders that the death penalty is not intrinsically *evil * as per practices like abortion and euthanasia, but we are still battling the mistaken belief that it is intrinsically Divine or divinely commanded rather than permitted when necessary to serve human justice. It’s abolition is both a natural and divine necessity in the climate of today.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So, reflecting on my original question after this interesting discussion.

Why does the CCC 2263 say “murder (slaying) of the innocent … is intentional killing.”

I believe the best answer involves recognising that:
(a) the Latin word for “murder” here can be translated as “slay” (as it is elsewhere).
(b) “slaying” means deliberately killing another
(c) if that other is innocent, it cannot be justified by the principle of double effect (i.e. though deliberate the death was not directly intended, protection was intended).
(d) therefore such a deliberate killing can never be justified.

Can we then ever “murder (slay) the guilty”?

Yes I think we can, if we understand that “slaying” is really meant here.
In self-defence (personal or by the State) it is possible to deliberately kill (slay) another as long as we primarily intend to protect using proportional means and no other means is possible.

The commandment is variously translated both in the OT, NT and different Catechisms as “Thou shalt not murder” and “Thou shall not kill.”

This suggests that neither english word well translates the subtlety of the commandment.
I think the use of slay as above may square the circle?

Any thoughts…

I believe this is “artefact” of the now superceded RetrJustice approach to Capital Punishment.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Innocent does not mean “non threatening.” It means one who has not sinned.

Ender

I don’t think that is what it means in this context. And by your definition – there would be no innocent people. If the mayor of my town kills someone from the evil town next door and that town then decides to bomb my town – and I am killed – I am an innocent person in that case, and my killing was not justified and ='s murder I think.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

That is incorrect, do a GOOGLE search with these three:

Catholic “death penalty” “natural law”

In addition, there is 2000 years of Catholic teaching based upon the moral and ethical acceptance of the death penalty. None of that is, all of a sudden, immoral teaching

Again, not only does that confict with 2000 years of Catholic teaching, it also conflicts with the recent Catechism, in that the CCC states that the death penalty is allowed under certain circumstances, meaning that it is still moral and acceptable and cannot be viewed in the same light as an improper killing.

In addition, any Catholic may find that the death penalty is required under all murder circumstances and find that executions should be increased and remaim a Catholic in good standing.

Yes, an “individual acting on his own”, UNLESS the killing is IN SELF DEFENSE OR IN DEFENSE OF OTHERS.

Execution by the state is still allowed as a matter of justice and/or redress.

I don’t think he was saying the death penalty isn’t allowed by Catholic teaching --I think he was saying we are not to desire the death of another human being no matter how evil. We should instead desire their conversion, their change of heart. We should execute them only if it is need to protect society from them–and not as some form of revenge and calling it justice.

CCC 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. (2306)
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm—without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself—the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”68

This is current Church teaching–it would seem to me you may overstating your case a tad – I don’t see this as permitting the death penalty as a form of “justice and/or redress”.
I’m not arguing that the death penalty is not permitted, only that we have been called to moved past the idea of an eye for an eye.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Protection is not now and has never been the primary objective of punishment, and of itself does not determine the severity of the punishment. The primary justification for any punishment is retribution - retributive justice. This is what legitimates the use of capital punishment.

Ender

Is retribution really why one punishes? If you have children is that why you punish them? Or is it in order to help them reform their ways? Why does the Church excommunicate? Is it to punish? or is it with the hope that the one excommunicated will see the serious error of their ways and reform and return to the Church? Why do we receive penances in confession–is it to punish us or is to help us to reform–to help us to live a more holy life? Is purgatory merely a form of retributive justice or is it a purification so that we can be in the presence of God? Did Christ call us to this eye for eye mentality or did he show us a higher way? With regards to us–does God want retributive justice or does he want us to come to him? Does he desire our punishment or our salvation? CCC 2267 doesn’t seem to uphold your idea of retributive justice as the justification for the legitimate use of the death penalty. Further CCC 2266 says that "Legitimate authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. …Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party."

Don’t we punish to redress the disorder and reform? My boys recently broke the neighbors window–their punishment required redressing the situation and hopefully taught them not to do this again—retribution was not something that entered my mind–nor might I add my neighbors mind.

The peace of Christ,
Mark