Why the revised CCC 2267 is NOT a condemnation or contradiction of the historical Church’s teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter hmikell7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would think just by the fact that the death penalty was allowed for that it was considered moral.

If something is moral then it is admissible
 
hmikell7 said:
I’m not entirely sold on the idea that the death penalty is entirely warranted for crimes like treason. Terrorism? Yes, if there was no hope of adequately containing the offender. But loyalty to the state shouldn’t be a condition for life in my mind.
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think all forms of treason should should warrant the death penalty. Only those which physically put civilian lives in danger and/or result in the deaths of govt officials and agents
 
Last edited:
If something is moral then it is admissible
Click to expand...
I disagree. Okay, let’s say that the death penalty is defined as moral. Does that mean that it would be moral to punish all crimes with the death penalty? Of course not. Likewise, if there is a better alternative to the death penalty which maintains the dignity of the human person, would not it be better to avoid the death penalty? The admissibility of the death penalty is in a way subjective to the crime committed as well as to the abilities of the society in question.

I don’t know of a single person who believes that the death penalty is morally permissible for traffic infractions. It would also depend on the circumstances of the crime committed. Should a person who stole a loaf of bread to feed their starving children be sentenced to death? Would the state be justified in doing so? I don’t think so.

In these instances the idea of the death penalty could be moral while still being inadmissible
 
Last edited:
hmikell7 said:
In these instances the idea of the death penalty could be moral while still being inadmissible
Click to expand...
I agree but isn’t it the Pope’s intention to make it inadmissible in all circumstances?
 
While some people have legitimate concerns about the changes to the Catechism, most of the reactions I’ve seen stem from a more general distaste (contempt) for Pope Francis.

This is from the last catechism: "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 to the dignity of the human person."

How is that different from what Pope Francis has made more explicit? It’s perfectly continuous.

Not to mention people are forgetting how development of social teaching works. Unlike dogmatic teaching, social teaching – while remaining fundamentally true – must adapt and be worked out in specific contexts.

Religious liberty, anyone? Ever heard of that development?
 
Last edited:
Yeah you should start a thread on that instead of hijacking this one.
 
leocor said:
The statement that the death penalty violates a human’s dignity. What exactly is human dignity, and how is that dignity violated by capital punishment administered by a court of law? Would other punishments, or possibly acts of self defense, not violate human dignity? And then, if such other acts do not, then how does a judgment of capital punishment violate human dignity, compared to those other acts?
Click to expand...
Also something I was thinking about. Does one’s dignity preclude them from spending eternity in hell?
 
Yes it is, because we live in an age where we have better alternatives to the death penalty, which preserve the dignity of the human person. In such a world, the death penalty would always be inadmissible, because we have better alternatives to the death penalty.

This may change in the future, which is why my first comment on the post, under the original post, states that I see this revision as short-sighted, because we may wind up living in a world in which the technologies available to us now (which have created these better alternatives) may no longer be an option, in which case we’d be back to the death penalty being permissible in certain circumstances.

As it stands now, however, the death penalty is always inadmissible because it is not the best option we have available to us, and should be avoided in favor of these alternatives at all cost.
 
Yes it is, because we live in an age where we have better alternatives to the death penalty, which preserve the dignity of the human person.
Click to expand...
Wait… Isn’t that what the previous catechism said? 😉 😉

This is from the last catechism: "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 to the dignity of the human person."

No need for anyone to freak out! 🙂
 
Last edited:
I fully understand, and agree mostly with your thought here. However, I don’t see how today’s world has made the death penalty invalid through other alternatives, nor has the Pope proven how so. There have been many instances in the US where prisons are made central recruitment centers for gangs, where murders still take place among inmates, and other criminal operations are performed therein. This gets even worse in other countries that are third world, today. I fail to see how exactly these unnamed and non-sourced “alternatives” are better in “all circumstances” today.
 
I believe the question of morality is still in play as to whether the teaching as been contradicted or changed which is the topic of the thread but as to the reasons given for the death penalty not being needed. Do you agree with this…?
Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens
Click to expand...
 
If a person is a member of a prison gang, what does that matter if he’s serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole? He’ll never see the outside anyway, and prisons today are secure enough that it’s nearly impossible to escape from maximum security facility.

It’s not so much that these measures (life sentence without parole) have been implemented across the board, but the option is there. In which case it would be better to take that option than to choose to go with the death penalty.
 
Yes, I agree with that statement. It’s nearly impossible to escape from a maximum security facility in today’s world
 
yankeesouth said:
But the question of morality is central to whether there has been a change or contradiction in a teaching, no?
Click to expand...
The words “moral,” “immoral,” “morality,” occur nowhere in the CDF letter (link below). Those of us who suspect Pope Francis may have been wrong to act as he did are not accusing him of acting immorally.

zenit.org

Pope Francis Decides to Update Church Catechism: 'The Death Penalty is Inadmissable' - ZENIT - English

Revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty
zenit.org zenit.org
 
Yes.

If anything, the only question I would have is why Francis seemed it necessary to change the Catechism. I won’t doubt he has reason to – he is the church’s pastor, and he knows the troubles facing the Church far better than I do.

But precisely because the last Catechism essentially implied what Francis says in the new Catechism, I wonder what was so critical about changing it now.

Like, it’s just NOT a drastic change of language.

Maybe it’s the fact that SOOOO many Catholics continue to support the death penalty, even in today’s modern circumstances? Maybe he wanted to it to be more explicit? IDK!

But as for me, there is no issue about “change.”
 
Last edited:
Do a search on prisoner killed, prison guard killed, etc. That statement is not accurate and the Pope can not possibly know the conditions of penal systems throughout the world.
 
That was not my intention. I am asking the question as it relates to whether the teaching was changed or developed. Is the death penalty moral or immoral?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top