is the pope's new encyclical on the death penalty infallible?

[linate]

In the encyclical that francis released a few weeks ago (october 2020),
"Pope Francis repeats that the death penalty is "inadmissible" and that "there can be no stepping back from this position."[21] He adds that the Catholic Church is committed for the worldwide abolition of death penalty; he explains: "The firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe."[14]"

the pope uses the words "there can be no stepping back from this position". that sounds like an intention to set up an infallible teaching. the fairest understanding of infallibility is whether the pope intends to bind the church on faith and morals... and this is right up there in looking like a duck and quacking like a duck. so it is a duck?..... infallible?

[dUSt]

Infallible is such a weird word, because it requires an extremely clear, unambiguous and understandable meaning in all languages and cultures.

So, with that said, I like to think of encyclicals as infallible with interpretation. lol

[linate]

id say encyclicals, like catechisms, can't be considered infallible to catholics, just because they're writings from the pope, because there are examples that contradict other examples. but if the pope intends for it to be infallible, that's fair game. as far as i can see, it boils down to intention, and ya can't read their minds if it's not clear. 

Edited October 23, 2020 by linate

[dUSt]

Yet, we are bound to adhere to the teachings of the Church. Encyclicals are an important element of the Deposit of Faith. Catholics can't just look up all the "infallible teachings" of the church and decide to ignore everything else.

[Ash Wednesday]

Encyclicals are literally, "papal letters" -- so they aren't necessarily infallible in themselves but depending on the subject, may enforce teachings that are infallible. The Church has never taught that the death penalty was intrinsically evil. Popes as recent as Benedict XVI have allowed for diversity of position on its permissiveness. So in that sense I don't think the position Francis has taken can be set up to be infallible. 

I think this is why the term "inadmissible" is used, because it's framing capital punishment as an unnecessary practice in light of modern circumstances, as opposed to an intrinsic evil like abortion. In some cases, the death penalty has been permissible, but with abortion, as an intrinsic evil, it's never permissible. I think the term "inadmissible" still theoretically allows for some wiggle room, as it applies to modern circumstances but it's not a universal application. For example, if western civilization suddenly devolved into such chaos in the future where it was once again difficult to detain dangerous criminals for whatever reason, in theory I think there would be room for future revision to the current teaching -- to have capital punishment rendered admissible if needed be. Again I just use this example theoretically. I interpret "there can be no stepping back from this position" as an exhortation to move away from tolerating the death penalty and to press forward with abolishment, as opposed to framing anything to meet the criteria for infallibility. The Vatican gave some additional explanations when they revised the Catechism's passage on the death penalty that are useful reading in trying to understand this.

All of this said, I know the encyclical and wordage in the revisions to the Catechism are still being heavily debated among theologians and the like. That's above my pay grade and out of my league, though.

[fides' Jack]

On 10/23/2020 at 4:31 PM, Ash Wednesday said:

The Church has never taught that the death penalty was intrinsically evil.

In point of fact the Church has explicitly taught that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and is permissible in some circumstances.  This has been debated ad nauseum here before.  But the pope's move on this is an attempt to change existing Church teaching, and must be rejected by all the faithful.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

In point of fact the Church has explicitly taught that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil, and is permissible in some circumstances.  This has been debated ad nauseum here before.  But the pope's move on this is an attempt to change existing Church teaching, and must be rejected by all the faithful.

You mean that Pope Francis has attempted to teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil? Where do you see that?

On 10/23/2020 at 6:31 PM, Ash Wednesday said:

Encyclicals are literally, "papal letters" -- so they aren't necessarily infallible in themselves but depending on the subject, may enforce teachings that are infallible. The Church has never taught that the death penalty was intrinsically evil. Popes as recent as Benedict XVI have allowed for diversity of position on its permissiveness. So in that sense I don't think the position Francis has taken can be set up to be infallible. 

I think this is why the term "inadmissible" is used, because it's framing capital punishment as an unnecessary practice in light of modern circumstances, as opposed to an intrinsic evil like abortion. In some cases, the death penalty has been permissible, but with abortion, as an intrinsic evil, it's never permissible. I think the term "inadmissible" still theoretically allows for some wiggle room, as it applies to modern circumstances but it's not a universal application. For example, if western civilization suddenly devolved into such chaos in the future where it was once again difficult to detain dangerous criminals for whatever reason, in theory I think there would be room for future revision to the current teaching -- to have capital punishment rendered admissible if needed be. Again I just use this example theoretically. I interpret "there can be no stepping back from this position" as an exhortation to move away from tolerating the death penalty and to press forward with abolishment, as opposed to framing anything to meet the criteria for infallibility. The Vatican gave some additional explanations when they revised the Catechism's passage on the death penalty that are useful reading in trying to understand this.

All of this said, I know the encyclical and wordage in the revisions to the Catechism are still being heavily debated among theologians and the like. That's above my pay grade and out of my league, though.

I know that in the past the Church has taught that the death penalty may be applied, but is it actually dogma that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil?

Let's say that Pope Francis comes along and does actually say "the death penalty is intrinsically evil." Why cannot that be a legitimate development, after the Church has better understood the issue over time?

Like how at one point the Church did not completely rule out slavery, but now she says "can't do it".

Edited October 27, 2020 by Peace

[Ash Wednesday]

12 hours ago, Peace said:

I know that in the past the Church has taught that the death penalty may be applied, but is it actually dogma that the death penalty is not intrinsically evil?

Let's say that Pope Francis comes along and does actually say "the death penalty is intrinsically evil." Why cannot that be a legitimate development, after the Church has better understood the issue over time?

Like how at one point the Church did not completely rule out slavery, but now she says "can't do it".

Doctrine falls into 3 categories, and only 1 of those is dogma. I don't think the morality of capital punishment has ever fit the criteria of being dogma, that's a very specific category involving teachings that are considered divinely revealed. So by bringing up the issue of something not being classified as intrinsic evil, it's not to say "lol it's not an intrinsic evil so it's totally OK" -- so I'm not really using the term to justify it but rather to explain why people still debate the morality of it. Every moral question does have its own specific context and considerations -- given the Church's wide and extensive permissiveness of capital punishment throughout history and varying conditions of law and order, I'm doubtful that, specific to this particular issue, they would ever define it as intrinsic evil. That said, a practice doesn't have to be defined as intrinsic evil in order to take an opposing stance to it.

[fides' Jack]

19 hours ago, Peace said:

You mean that Pope Francis has attempted to teach that the death penalty is intrinsically evil? Where do you see that?

No, in fact that's one of my points on this topic.  He specifically chose words that have no canonical meaning, i.e. "not admissible".  It seems like he's trying to change the perception of the people on the matter, because he knows he can't actually change Church teaching.

I hope to God that's not actually the case, though...  If it is, then God have mercy on him.  By changing the CCC to say something almost directly opposite of what it said before really makes it look that way, though.  What it said before, bear in mind, had the force of legitimate Church authority on morality behind it.  Now it does not.

19 hours ago, Peace said:

Let's say that Pope Francis comes along and does actually say "the death penalty is intrinsically evil." Why cannot that be a legitimate development, after the Church has better understood the issue over time?

Like how at one point the Church did not completely rule out slavery, but now she says "can't do it".

Because the Church has specifically stated that it's not intrinsically evil.  No, it's not dogma, but it's so well defined throughout the centuries that it's impossible to come to any other conclusion.  In fact, the Church has stated that there are times when capital punishment is necessary for the good of society.

I would be very interested if anybody can find me any source from the Church even implying that outright slavery would ever be necessary.

[Peace]

23 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

No, in fact that's one of my points on this topic.  He specifically chose words that have no canonical meaning, i.e. "not admissible".  It seems like he's trying to change the perception of the people on the matter, because he knows he can't actually change Church teaching.

I hope to God that's not actually the case, though...  If it is, then God have mercy on him.  By changing the CCC to say something almost directly opposite of what it said before really makes it look that way, though.  What it said before, bear in mind, had the force of legitimate Church authority on morality behind it.  Now it does not.

Huh? I just thought that he was saying that it is inadmissible because the current circumstances do not warrant it, in keeping with JP2 and limiting the DP to limited circumstances.

He obviously is trying to change people's perception on the matter, but I don't see what the problem with that is, if his conclusion is correct in that the DP is not warranted under modern circumstances.

It is not as if the Church is not allowed to weigh in on the prudential aspects of how doctrine should be applied.

Really, you think that in the year 2020 governments should be going around putting people to death? I mean, that is pretty out of line, honestly. There seems to be a wide consensus among the bishops that we should be seeking to eliminate the DP, although there are some dissenters here and there.

Quote

Because the Church has specifically stated that it's not intrinsically evil.  No, it's not dogma, but it's so well defined throughout the centuries that it's impossible to come to any other conclusion.

Not really impossible, although I would be surprised.

 

Edited October 28, 2020 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

54 minutes ago, Peace said:

Really, you think that in the year 2020 governments should be going around putting people to death? I mean, that is pretty out of line, honestly. There seems to be a wide consensus among the bishops that we should be seeking to eliminate the DP, although there are some dissenters here and there.

You're right in that there is a wide consensus among bishops that we should be seeking to eliminate the "DP".  There is also wide consensus among bishops that it's OK to cancel all public masses in the middle of a pandemic.  I'd venture the two sides in both of these issues are roughly the same people.

Pope St. John Paul II's position seemed to be mainly that 1st world governments have the ability to keep someone locked up to the point that they aren't a danger to society, any longer.  Pope Francis' position is more that the DP is an affront to the dignity of the human person (which is specifically false).  "[...] inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person" is the exact terminology.  The argument for why it's inadmissible, to him, would apply in all cases, regardless of the general well being of society.

Personally, I disagree with both.  I will go so far as to say I think it's impossible to have a just society without the death penalty.  It seems to me that a society ridding itself of the death penalty is yet another sign that the society is doomed to destroy itself.  That's just my opinion, again.

It's interesting that you bring up 2020 governments.  If anything, I would say that 2019 governments would fall more into line with St. JPII's view.  2020 has been a crazy year; I think the political views this year make the government less equipped to keep society safe from criminals.

Now that my extremist position is brought to light, I will say this: I don't think it should be used lightly.  But I would have no problem if it were the default punishment for rape and murder when there is absolutely no doubt of guilt.

[Peace]

5 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Personally, I disagree with both.  I will go so far as to say I think it's impossible to have a just society without the death penalty.  It seems to me that a society ridding itself of the death penalty is yet another sign that the society is doomed to destroy itself.  That's just my opinion, again.

Why? What is the rationale for those conclusions?

 

[CatherineM]

If it’s infallible, he will say that. Those aren’t secret. As the only person here who’s witnessed a legal execution, I pray that it will be infallible someday.