Pope Declares Death Penalty Inadmissible in All Cases

[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. 

[Guest]

Look at all the Cafeteria Catholics.

[catholicinsd]

It's quite amazing to all the "Catholics," who in addition to defying the Supreme Pontiff, are advocating for killing people.

[Guest]

"True Dogmatic Progress" https://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=38004

Catechism’s revision is instance of ‘true dogmatic progress,’ Vatican prelate says

[Peace]

6 hours ago, Anomaly said:

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.  

You amuse me. We do not come over to your house and tell you how to be a proper atheist do we?

[Peace]

13 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

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

 "Pro-life" is striving to keep a person alive. "Pro-death" is striving to put a person to death. I don't think it's that complicated of an argument.

The only situation where killing someone could be considered "pro-life" is when killing the person is absolutely necessary to prevent him from harming other innocent people. But once a person has been arrested by the police, that should never be necessary given the technology we have today.

13 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

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.  

Let's keep it real here. Pope Francis is much more an expert on the historic teaching of the Church than you and I will ever be. And it seems that the majority of the living bishops around the globe are with him, when it comes to the death penalty. So exactly why is it that we should disregard all of these men who have formally studied Catholic theology for decades, and who have the Holy Orders, and follow the opinion of a random person on the internet who favors the death penalty?

It seems to me that your response is the emotional one. Look. Let's keep it real. We grew up in the USA. We have a culture that favors the death penalty, and that clouds our judgment in this area.

13 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

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.  

This type of argument really reminds me of the kinds of arguments that the pro-choice folks make. They take an extremely rare situation (abortion necessary to save the life of the mother), and then base their arguments on that.

If someone tries to kill you or cause you grievous bodily injury, of course you have the right to defend yourself. But the situations where it is truly necessary to put a prisoner to death, in order to prevent him from causing harm to others, are extremely rare. You get sent to one of these Supermax prisons that we have nowadays, forget about all of that.

13 hours ago, dominicansoul said:

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...  

I think it is rather simple. Strive for the abolition of the death penalty. Not exactly the most popular thing to do in Texas, granted. . .

[Anomaly]

39 minutes ago, Peace said:

You amuse me. We do not come over to your house and tell you how to be a proper atheist do we?

You’re  personally invited to come on over for a beer and chat, provided you respect atheism and like most atheists as much as I respect Catholicism and like most Catholics. 

[Peace]

23 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

You’re  personally invited to come on over for a beer and chat, provided you respect atheism and like most atheists as much as I respect Catholicism and like most Catholics. 

What you wrote was not respect. It was condescension.

[KnightofChrist]

It remains perfectly moral and in line with the Scared Scripture and Sacred Tradition to execute murderers and even pedophiles.  Doctrine cannot charge nor can it develop to the point it contradicts what was previously taught. It remains a fact of the Deposit of Faith the state has the right of the sword to punish evil doers. 

4 hours ago, Peace said:

 "Pro-life" is striving to keep a person alive. "Pro-death" is striving to put a person to death. I don't think it's that complicated of an argument.

The only situation where killing someone could be considered "pro-life" is when killing the person is absolutely necessary to prevent him from harming other innocent people. But once a person has been arrested by the police, that should never be necessary given the technology we have today.

It is pro-life to execute murderers as that is the only punishment equal to the innocent life stolen. No amount of time in any prison is equal to the innocent taken. A man that rapes and murders children could justly be executed based primarily, even solely, on the crime committed even without being any danger to society in future. 

On 8/2/2018 at 1:15 PM, dUSt said:

I don't understand how anyone could argue this is NOT infallible. All of the conditions are met--he even changed the catechism. 

So, suck it up it up buttercups. The death penalty is now inadmissible. If you can't handle it, maybe think twice about receiving communion.

Pope Francis should be far more concerned with the pedophile crisis in the Church than saving the lives of wicked men who've deprived others of their lives. I will continue to believe as the Church has always taught, as part of the Deposit of Faith, that there are times when it is just to put wicked men to death for their crimes.

[KnightofChrist]

And yes if anyone is wondering I do believe that former Cardinal McCarrick should be arrested and if found guilty of crimes of pedophilia be hung by the neck until dead. Child rape by clergy has gone on far enough. As a victim of that vile crime I find Pope Francis inaction even easily mistakenable enabling of these pedo predators bothbsick and sad.

[Ash Wednesday]

Phatmass barbecue at Anomaly's