Dear Brendan:
I believe the Catechisms are in conflict in several areas. Assuming they are in conflict…what to do? Follow the old and figure out why the new is different? Or pretend there is no difference?
Gorman,
When I read them, I see them more as complementary, than conflicting.
Let’s take a look at them and I’ll explain
Trent
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by 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 this 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 of life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence the 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.
Note where it is at and what it is trying to explain. It is listed in the section explaining the 10 Commandments. Specifically here, Trent edevors to explain excatly why the execution of criminals is an act in accordance with the 5th Commandment. The purpose of this text is not to describe WHEN and HOW the execution may be just, only that it CAN be just.
You will see this in the bolded section. It does restrict this explaination to the “just use”. In saying that, it both recognizes that there ARE just uses, and there are UNJUST uses of the Death Penalty. But it does not explain when it is just and unjust, what circumstances would make this use of this unjust.
Pope Pius later filled in the reason WHY Trent is True
"Even when there is question of a person condemned to death, the state does not take away the right of the individual to life. It is then reserved to the public authority to deprive the condemned person of the benefit of life in expiation for his guilt, after he himself, by his crime, has already deprived himself of his right to life
The State does not take the life of the condemned, the condemned has already forfited it. This is not a new teaching, again only an expansion of what Trent had to say. The State has a right to enact the death penalty, and it is not a violation of the 5th Commandment to do so.
And that is were the 1992 Catechism expands on this point. It fills in the gaps, so to speak, in what Trent left silent.
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.
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 are more in conformity to 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 definitely 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.”
Note that in the very first line, it confirms Trent, that the death penalty may be used justly.
It then sets out some conditions “only possible way of effectively defending” etc…
and that it’s use be “very rare, if no practically non-existent”
That, again, in no way contradicts Trent.
The key problem is not conflict between the two Catechism, they are not. The problem comes in the “grayness” of the conditions.
The big question I have is how to ensure the saftety of other inmates and prison guards from certain criminals.
The vast majority may be incarcerated with a reasonable expecation that they will not endanger others during their incarceration. There are exceptions.
Would the Church allow perpetual solitary confinement for these prisoners? How can that be done without contradicting the prohibitions on mental torture?
Its THOSE type of conflicts that I would like to see the Magisterium address.
