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

[Delphinus]

Because we are capable of locking criminals away for the remainder of their lives, and because we are capable of preventing their escape (for the most part), the death penalty is not only unnecessary, it is inadmissible.

I agree with you. I think there will come a time when executions will have to stop, because we can safely house prisoners. I do not think that day is here yet, though. My point being in this line…we are quick to consider keeping these dangerous people in prisons…but what about the lives of the guards, doctors, and other inmates that live and work in close proximity with them? Keeping unarmed prisoners in with very smart, unstable, and deadly men and women is not unlike locking them up with lions, it’s inhumane. They are forced to live in fear, constantly looking over their shoulders or being routinely attacked.

 

[mythbuster1]

I wouldn’t consider it unjust for murderers to have to live among murderers. Those who live by the sword die by the sword. And if the prospect of death taking them by surprise at any moment provokes them to repent, so much the better. We have a duty to protect prisoners from one another, but doing so perfectly is impossible, and it is entirely reasonable that murderers should fear being killed.

 

[Lev]

hmikell7:

Because we are capable of locking criminals away for the remainder of their lives, and because we are capable of preventing their escape (for the most part), the death penalty is not only unnecessary, it is inadmissible.

I agree with you. I think there will come a time when executions will have to stop, because we can safely house prisoners. I do not think that day is here yet, though. My point being in this line…we are quick to consider keeping these dangerous people in prisons…but what about the lives of the guards, doctors, and other inmates that live and work in close proximity with them? Keeping unarmed prisoners in with very smart, unstable, and deadly men and women is not unlike locking them up with lions, it’s inhumane. They are forced to live in fear, constantly looking over their shoulders or being routinely attacked.

Can you give an example of a particular case that supports your point?

The most violent offenders go to maximum security where they are housed alongside other violent offenders. The security measures are ramped up to manage situations that might threaten both offenders and staff. The statistics regarding inmate crimes are mostly made up from the general population. How do you propose resolving these? Executing all offenders regardless of their crime?

 

[pnewton]

I note two key words in your article. One is “insinuates”. This term means that someone is adding to what the Pope said by deriving from it something more. The second word is “may.” While I am not a fan of First Things, I would expect even those that are understand that basic obedience to the Church would mean giving the Pope the most charitable understanding of what he said. If he “may” have gone too far, then the very word means he may not have gone too far. Which is more charitable to our primary teacher of the faith?

 

[mythbuster1]

The Pope has a responsibility to speak clearly, for “If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare for battle?”

 

[AlNg]

I note two key words in your article. One is “insinuates”. This term means that someone is adding to what the Pope said by deriving from it something more. The second word is “may.”

There is more to the article by Feser than what I have quoted here.

 

[AHapka]

We do, in modern countries. However there are some humans who still choose to live in tribes in very remote parts of the world without any modern technology. Take, for example, the Sentinelese who live in an island off of India and who’s most modern technology is spears and bows and arrows.

In those extreme circumstances, with no buildings that could hold a cranial, I could still see it being admissible.

 

[adgloriam]

Religious liberty, anyone? Ever heard of that development?

Drawing the analogy with the 2014 “Right to be forgotten”, starting in Spain, it feels safe to say both “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” have endangered dignity. US tradition doesn’t facilitate that reevaluation however increasingly urgent.

 

[chessnerd321]

She has not condemned its usage in history, but has instead acknowledged its place in time, and cemented its acceptability under those circumstances.

I wish the CCC section were more clear on this part. The words “was long considered” to me gives the connotation of “this was previously thought by church officials, but erroneously so.” Especially when the next paragraph which you didn’t quote begins with “Today, however…” So it gives a “then they thought this but now we know otherwise” vibe. But that’s suspiciously close to condemning the past.

So if indeed they mean what is implied by the accompaning documents, they need to change their wording for clarity. I worry they are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

 

[angel12]

The Pope has a responsibility to speak clearly

“Inadmissable” is clear.

 

[Mboo]

And also I notice that when François says “A”, some make unimaginable intellectual acrobatics to say that he did not say “A”, or that “A” that he says is exactly “B” that the Church has always said

 

[angel12]

In the CCC there are errors, personal opinions of the author (first JPII and then Francis), truths of Faith, unfortunately all it’s content is presented as a infallible truth of Faith.

Just to be clear, how far do you go in denying the teaching authority of the Popes? Completely? Only certain Popes? Only when they teach something you disagree with?

 

[hmikell7]

You do realize of course that the Catechism is not an infallible document? It contains in infallible teachings, yes, but it is not allowed solely of them. How was the person you were responding to denying the teaching authority of the Pope

 

[angel12]

You do realize of course that the Catechism is not an infallible document? It contains in infallible teachings, yes, but it is not allowed solely of them. How was the person you were responding to denying the teaching authority of the Pope

Please show me where the teaching authority of the Pope is limited to only infallible dogmas.

 

[hmikell7]

I never said that, not did the previous poster. His teaching authority does not automatically make all of his pronouncements infallible though. If it did then everything he said would be infallible. Which it’s not. I accept the Pope’s teaching authority, but at the same time the fact of the matter remains that this revision is technically a fallible teaching. Now whether it’s wrong or not is another matter entirely, but it IS fallible

 

[angel12]

I never said that, not did the previous poster.

Then you have no argument with what I said. If he considers the CCC “personal opinion,” then my question is valid. Where does he draw the line on the teaching authority of the Popes.

 

[Nigel7]

I’m not so concerned with preserving the human dignity of the most violent criminals. Coddling violent criminals makes a poor example for society.

And what of the human dignity of their victims whose lives these violent criminals destroy?
I hope their victims had “sufficient opportunity for redemption” before their lives were stolen from them by these violent criminals whose human dignity the Pope aims to protect.

 

[hmikell7]

Now you’ve stepped out of disliking the current revision, and are in open opposition to the previous Catechism as well.

Matthew 5:38-43 eye for an eye (life for a life) no longer applies in the new covenant

 

[leocor]

I agree, except for the last part. The Church has said that the Catechism is not infallible.

 

[PetraG]

I agree.

Personally, while I totally believe the death penalty is over used in many parts of the United States, I do think there are some criminals who are too dangerous to be kept alive.

• some criminal bosses run crime empires still from behind bars
• some prisons are known for their gang recruitment
• some criminals break the law from in prison
• some terrorists are too dangerous to be kept alive
• some crimes, like treason, terrorism, & war crimes are too disastrous to not have a death penalty option

Crime empires have this way of continuing to exist after the boss is killed, and sometimes are even more violent in the chaos of “re-structuring.” The people working for these bosses do not return to quiet “private sector” lives of honest employment just because their boss is killed, regardless of who kills him.
Gang recruitment is not just done by murderers. How many people are you going to pre-emptively execute?
Law-breaking in prison is also done by non-murderers, which leads to the same question.
What does “too dangerous to be kept alive” even mean? Do you mean they can murder telekinetically? Or do you mean psychopaths ought to be executed?
The last point is the most inexplicable. In a world full of suicide bombers, what on earth makes you think that death would be a more terrifying prospect than the remainder of life spent under the control of your intended targets?