Pope Declares Death Penalty Inadmissible in All Cases

[Anomaly]

I don’t think anyone would grade ones Catholicity mostly by your stance on the DP unless you feel you need to vehemently oppose the pope on this issue.   It’s okay to say you aren’t sure what it means as far as infallible teaching, other than it is based on the inherent dignity and value of all human life. 

[fides' Jack]

6 hours ago, linate said:

"I will add that if the pope did say that there is no theoretical case when capital punishment could be morally acceptable, that statement would be a contradiction of both Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition, and all Catholics would be duty-bound to reject it."

if that hypothetical were granted to be true, it should follow as granted to be true that the pope isn't infallible. unless you have good reasons to be a sedevacantist or something. ive seen those types try to basically argue if a teaching contradicts another, one of them is false but that doesn't mean there's a contradiction but that there's an anti pope. that sounds like they are just picking and choosing what to believe, because they simply choose which one is the anti pope. they need to be more principled about it, to say this or that pope is validly elected or not, and go from there. 

It is granted that normally the pope is just as fallible as any other person.  People hear the term "papal infallibility" and think Catholics have to believe everything the pope says.  That would be ludicrous.  

It's not nit-picking to differentiate between what you called "binding" (which is actually the same as teaching), and merely voicing an opinion.  Catholics would do well to educate themselves about what the differences are and how to evaluate each one.  I truly believe that this kind of faith is going to be tested in all Catholics during my lifetime.

I don’t think anyone would grade ones Catholicity mostly by your stance on the DP unless you feel you need to vehemently oppose the pope on this issue.   It’s okay to say you aren’t sure what it means as far as infallible teaching, other than it is based on the inherent dignity and value of all human life. 

I completely agree.  I think that will only happen in the event the pope does try to edict something directly opposed to established moral teaching.  The truth is that we came closer to this with the footnote in Amoris Laetitia than with this change to the text of the CCC.

[dominicansoul]

Dr Peters didn’t want to talk about this at length.  Haha. Everyone was flocking to his  social media accounts all asking the same questions. 

 

He did mention its going to get interesting when Catholics are called for jury duty where the death penalty might be considered.  At least now we have an easy way out of serving in that capacity :p 

[rkwright]

I hope for some clarity soon on this issue. I haven’t been on here in a while but jumped back on this hoping for some guidance. 

I am troubled by the change. I was never a death penalty advocate, but the JPII interpretation is clearly not consistent with the Francis version. This bothers me. 

Waiting for some clarity...

Also what does this mean for voting? If the DP violates the human dignity, does this put it on the same level as abortion? I can already feel the replies “but babies are innocent!”  That seems to have no bearing on whether a person is excuted by the state. “But abortion kills X thousand and death penalty only kills 10” Is it morally ok to kill one to save 10? Can I vote for a person who will advocate the death of one in order to save the 10?

All issues that I wish were clearer. Been stressed on this all day

[Guest]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/fact-check3a-does-the-death-penalty-deter3f/6116030

http://catholicnews.sg/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=711:what-pope-john-paul-ii-said-about-the-death-penalty&catid=140&Itemid=473&lang=en

JPII Evangelium Vitae: "It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organisation of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent". http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

 

The above is what Pope JPII had to state back in 1995.  Some 23 years or so later the penal system has moved on and we also have more information on the death penalty related to serious crime -  as per the first link I gave.

As I see it, what Pope Francis has done is updated the CCC in the light of information we have on hand today.

Here is what the CCC states about the death penalty before any changes:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

Quote

 

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 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 nonexistent."68

 

 

Edited August 3, 2018 by BarbaraTherese

[Guest]

Pope Francis is our shepherd through The Holy Spirit.  I would think that if one has problems with what he might be stating, one needs to prayerfully do one's own research to educate one's conscience.  One needs to ensure that one's resources for information are regarded as sound.

Doctrine and Dogma are not the same

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-are-dogma-doctrine-and-theology "All dogmas are infallibly defined, as we will see, so this reveals that there can be doctrines that are not infallible and thus that are not dogmas."

 

Non Infallible Teachings: http://jimmyakin.com/2005/05/noninfallible_t.html

 

USCCB: http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm

Edited August 3, 2018 by BarbaraTherese

[fides' Jack]

So, I've done a little more reading into this issue, and I have to say that I'm less sure of my position, now.

As far as I can tell, the text has not been translated into the official language of the Church: Latin.  I don't understand if that means that it's not technically official until it is, or if other languages, which do have differences in translation, are enough to deem it "official".  And what it means for it to be called "official" I don't really get, either.

One thing does seem more clear to me, though.  The CCC, when it was introduced, was given proclamation by Pope John Paul II that "I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion", and at another point, it "is given as a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine".  It is because of these statements that Catholics sort of hold the view that the CCC is infallible.  But the truth is that a teaching is not infallible because it is in the Catechism, but it is infallible because it is a true teaching.  Cardinal Ratszinger wrote about this in the introduction to the CCC itself.  So, at the time, in the 90's, after the pope declared the Catechism to be a sure reference text, it was so.  With any changes, those changes do not carry the same weight, unless it is again declared so.  

Given that, what I am less clear about is whether or not the traditional view of the death penalty, that it was permissible in extreme cases to protect other people, was binding doctrine.  It would seem, based on the evidence already given in the previous paragraph here, that we could be sure it was, but then I read this: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/08/quaeritur-if-something-is-in-the-catechism-do-i-have-to-give-in-believe-it-even-though-it-is-different-from-what-the-catechism-taught-before/.  If that's the case now, then it could also be the case, before.  It's worth a read, anyway.  I generally trust Fr. Z on these issues, and he quotes from the CCC himself here.

Another point of contention for me is the use of the term "inadmissible," and smarter people than myself have tried to determine what this really means.  Other than the fact that it's probably intentionally ambiguous, it seems most church scholars and theologians are taking that to mean that it's a difference of hierarchical policy, rather than moral teaching.  If anything, it sounds like it would be binding on scholars, theologians, priests and bishops, and others technically in the employ of the Church (and not the lay faithful) to reject the death penalty in all cases.

Finally, the most bothersome thing to me about this is that I've read numerous comments that people are really struggling with this.  Lay faithful are worried that this constitutes a change in moral teaching, and I've seen people talking about doubts of faith that they're having.  This isn't the first time in this pontificate that this has been the case.  And that's really worrying.  Many popes in times past have spoken out against the possibility of the Church not providing sufficient clarity about things like this.  The fact that Pope Francis has actually said that he hopes to show the gray side of things (as opposed to the black and white) at the very least demonstrates imprudence on his part.

I respect the office of the pope.  I respect his position.  I respect (and obey) the true teachings of the Church.  But it's plainly clear that Catholics were spoiled with the last several popes - we had saint after saint after saint for probably over a hundred years.  We're not used to a pope who is so willing to make mistakes and speak off-the-cuff and who refuses to clarify when specifically asked for clarification, and who allows intentionally ambiguous wording for controversial subjects to be commonplace.

[Guest]

St. Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (1995): "It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organisation of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent". http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

It is obvious that they above leaves room for time to pass - and for the understanding of the death penalty's affect on serious crime to be better informed.  It also leaves room for the penal system to improve.

 

USCCB Frequently Asked Questions: Is the doctrinal authority of the Catechism equal to that of the dogmatic definitions of a pope or ecumenical council?

"By its very nature, a catechism presents the fundamental truths of the faith which have already been communicated and defined. Because the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine in a complete yet summary way, it naturally contains the infallible doctrinal definitions of the popes and ecumenical councils in the history of the Church. It also presents teaching which has not been communicated and defined in these most solemn forms. This does not mean that such teaching can be disregarded or ignored. Quite to the contrary, the Catechism presents Catholic doctrine as an organic whole and as it is related to Christ who is the center. A major catechism, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, presents a compendium of Church teachings and has the advantage of demonstrating the harmony that exists among those teachings." http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/frequently-asked-questions-about-the-catechism-of-the-catholic-church.cfm

[Peace]

 

14 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

I will add that if the pope did say that there is no theoretical case when capital punishment could be morally acceptable, that statement would be a contradiction of both Sacred Scripture and Divine Tradition, and all Catholics would be duty-bound to reject it.

Why, because your personal interpretation of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is better than the Pope’s? Why don’t we just elect you the next pope since you apparently know more than he does.

[Peace]

10 hours ago, Ice_nine said:

I guess simple old me, I don't get it. I don't know what can change about church teaching and what can't. It's hard to be faithful when I don't even know which direction I'm supposed to go some times.

No, it is not hard to be faithful. Jesus said that his yoke is easy, and his burden is light. Anyone who wants to remain faithful has everything he needs to do so.

Concerning your main point, many of the doctrines that we hold today (such as the Trinity) developed and became more clear to us over long periods of time.

[dominicansoul]

Another thing that bothers me is how Catholics in recent times have said you can’t be prolife and pro death penalty.  

Um...WRONG...

I think the generations after Vatican II have been the most ignorant of Church teaching.  The church has long tied death penalty with the value of human life, ie self defense.  So death penalty is actually prolife in that regard.    I understand Pope John Paul’s teaching that it shouldn’t be used and should be rare because Of todays penal systems.  But his leaving it to rare cases always kept that church teaching intact.  

Now Francis seems to take away that prolife connection.    He seems to support an emotional response rather than a reasonable response.  

This is the essence of what troubles me and I can’t wrap my head around it.  Which is why I wonder if self defense is no longer acceptable?  I mean if the death penalty, which used to be acceptable as a means Of self defense in the teachings of the Church,  is now a mortal sin... what makes carrying a gun and using that gun if necessary for self defense, any different?  This is what Francis words have done.  It’s not simply can we put to death prisoners, it takes into account can we put anyone to death under any circumstance.  

And that’s the crux of this.  We devout Catholic buttercups want to follow our Pope, but we need a better explanation as to how this new teaching should be implemented and if it’s even a solid, speaking-from-the-chair-of-st Peter proclamation of a new mortal sin...  

[Guest]

Pope Francis is not speaking ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter).   Personally, I do not think that the issue raises the issue of grave matter.  My mind is still open on that point however - although because of the abounding non understanding, I don't think that grave matter can be involved-.   As I previously quoted from the USCCB, there are matters included in the CCC that are neither doctrine nor dogma

The Church is always and immovably against abortion and euthenasia.  The moral issue is serious and one of grave matter and the first condition for mortal sin.

However, we can make up our own minds re waging war and the death penalty according to one's conscience.  I think for too long prior to Vatican II, we were told when to jump and exactly how high.  Hence, post V2, we really do not know how to rightly form our consciences and make our own decisions before The Lord.  We fear and need someone to authoritatively tell us what to do and what not to do.  It is to serve out of fear and fear of the Judgement of God coming down on oneself.  That is not what The Gospel is about.

 

http://jimmyakin.com/2005/02/consisently_pro-2.html "Thus in his memorandum of last summer, Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia"

[Guest]

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/0556/01210.html#letteraing

The above is an English translation of Luis F. Card. Ladaria, S.I. - Prefect, Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of The Faith.  It is addressed to :

Letter to the Bishops
regarding the new revision of number 2267
of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
on the death penalty

 

I have read too texts from reliable sources on whether the death penalty reduces serious crime.  The indication seems to be that it does not. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/fact-check3a-does-the-death-penalty-deter3f/6116030

Edited August 3, 2018 by BarbaraTherese

[Anomaly]

As far as proving it he DP is or isn’t a deterrent, it’s impossible to absolutely prove a negative.  How can one prove something that did not happen?

And as far as if the Pope spoke infallibly or not, really isn’t an issue.   What he has said is not a great change in moral principle, but in practical application in current circumstances and understanding and ability of modern societies.  

In other words, he has not said that the DP is morally wrong in any circumstance, but it’s application in order to protect society in current circumstances is.    

As far as the development of changed Church Doctrine that happened decades ago when the Church understood and decided to teach the DP is not permissible as “just punishment”, but primarily only to protect others.  

Sheesh, you Catholics need to relax a bit.  The Church doesn’t have to be perfect in everything, just perfection in fundamental Dogma. If you’re good with the Apostles’ Creed, the Sacraments, and particularly the Eucharist, you’re good to go. After that, respectfully disagree if you really, really, seriously pondered on the matter.  It will all work out in time.  

[CatherineM]

As most people on here longer than ten minutes know, I’m a starch opponent of the death penalty. Wasn’t always, but when John Paul II said conception to natural death, I followed. 

I’m probably the only Phatmasser who has witnessed an execution. I know that people think it’s necessary for the victim’s family to receive closure. Closure doesn’t come from it. I’ve seen some people expecting it who are devastated after the execution when it doesn’t actually help. 

I’ve sat across a table from guys on death row and looked into their eyes. None were both sane and sober when committing their crimes. They were mostly poor, stupid, sick, or a minority. Sometimes all of the above. 

The guy that I witnessed his execution did a truly reprehensible crime. It was violent, disgusting, and senseless. He was the product of a horrific background and stoned when it happened. His co-defendant got life by testifying. Equal crime responsibility, but he said uncle to the cops first. 

His execution was botched. He was awake to suffocate slowly to death. Done in our names.