For some years now, I have expressed my concern that the death penalty is both cruel and unnecessary and I have called for its abolition.
So, I welcome the changes to The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty and I am grateful for Pope Francis’ leadership in working for an end to judicial executions worldwide.
The Catechism revisions announced today reflect an authentic development of the Church’s doctrine that started with St. John Paul II and has continued under emeritus Pope Benedict XVI and now Pope Francis.
The Scriptures, along with saints and teachers in the Church’s tradition, justify the death penalty as a fitting punishment for those who commit evil or take another person’s life. And the Church has always recognized that governments and civil authorities have the right to carry out executions in order to protect their citizens’ lives and punish those guilty of the gravest crimes against human life and the stability of the social order.
But in recent decades, there has been a growing consensus — among bishops’ conferences around the world and in the teachings of the Popes and the Catechism — that use of the death penalty can no longer be accepted.
In his letter, Evangelium Vitae (“The Gospel of Life”), Pope John Paul II said the death penalty could be used only in cases “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.” But, he added, “as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”
The revisions announced today are in line with that conclusion.
The Catechism is not equating capital punishment with the evils of abortion and euthanasia. Those crimes involve the direct killing of innocent life and they are always gravely immoral. By definition, the lives of almost all those on death row are not “innocent.” But as St. John Paul II said: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”
I respect that many good people will continue to believe that our society needs the death penalty to express its moral outrage and to punish those who commit the ultimate crime of taking human life.
But I do not believe that public executions serve to advance that message in our secular society.
Showing mercy to those who do not “deserve” it, seeking redemption for persons who have committed evil, working for a society where every human life is considered sacred and protected — this is how we are called to follow Jesus Christ and proclaim his Gospel of life in these times and in this culture.
Full story at Angelus News.
I think the Pope and Archbishop Gomez are badly mistaken. Because of corruption within the prison system, contact with inmates, and use of code, it’s well known that mafia bosses and drug lords often continue to issue murder contracts and run their organizations from behind bars. Confinement of these guys doesn’t completely protect the public. This is all short-sighted.
Despite the fancy headlines, it’s my opinion that the Churches teaching on the subject appears to be the same as expressed by John Paul II with Pope Francis merely offering an interpretation of that teaching.
It is also well known, due to DNA evidence, that not a few people on death row are actually innocent.
Anonymous,
True, but it’s also true that people are wrongly sentenced for all types of crimes including those of life imprisonment. If you wrongly sentence someone to life imprisonment without parole, you have done this person a grave injustice that can’t be repaid.
Of course that is true, but a few years in prison with decades free is a lot better than no years anywhere this side of heaven.
Anonymous,
True. It looks like we’re all making good points. :)
Let me clarify. My point is that the difference between the death penalty, life without parole, life with parole, and a 20 year sentence are all a matter of degree.
Being executed and then exonerated; or dying in prison after serving a life sentence without parole and then being exonerated; or serving a life sentence and being exonerated a week before death are all irreparable evil done to a human being that means little to the exonerated. My issue with your argument [as I perceive it] is that it actually attacks any heavy sentence out of fear of error. Therefore, it undercuts the penal system which is designed to protect society.
I think there is a big difference between life on death row and a life sentence, whether the inmate is actually guilty or innocent. Living on death row is usually harsher physically and mentally, but at least the person with a life sentence can have some level of hope.
But I guess the point here really is the issue of submission. At least three popes have advised us that the death penalty is no longer necessary and shouldn’t exist. Most of the world has come to that conclusion as well. Since when is it OK to take-or-leave the moral guidance of the Supreme Pontiff or local ordinary?
Anonymous,
I appreciate the conversation. If life on death row is harder than life imprisonment, this is because the harsher sentence may be needed to deter the more horrendous crimes. I’m missing your point.
Regarding submission, I’ve always respected the opinions of the Popes. But there’s a difference between Church’s teaching [which is binding] and the application of that teaching [which isn’t necessarily binding at all].
Case in point is the USCCB document on nuclear deterrence/war (1988). I agreed with the doctrinal elements but thought their application of some of those principle were reckless and unwise. I thought my own application was also consistent with Church teaching but was a wiser approach.
Anonymous,
If life on death row is harder than life imprisonment, this is because the harsher sentence may be needed to deter the more horrendous crimes. But I’m missing your point.
Regarding submission, I’ve always respected the opinions of the Popes. But there’s a difference between Church teaching [which is binding] and the application of that teaching [which isn’t necessarily binding at all].
Case in point is the USCCB document on nuclear deterrence/war (1988). I agreed with the doctrinal elements but thought their application of some of those principle were reckless and unwise. I thought my own application was also consistent with those same principles but was a much wiser approach.
Anonymous,
I apologize for the double post. After my reply didn’t post in the usual timely manner, I assumed that it got lost in a glitch. Therefore, I posted again.
WOW! This is great admission folks from Seitz. Folks, Francis is merely CONTINUING the magisterium of John Paul II! Francis is NOT a heretic as some of you are saying, nor is he going against the teachings of the Church. What I fault Seitz on is his belief that the Church ought to approve the death penalty in order to protect the guilty–the prison population. That is wrong. The way to address this is to bolster and strengthen the penal system to protect other inmates, rather than approving the death penalty to protect the guilty!
Jon,
You have falsely assumed that I’m for the death penalty: I’m not. It only seems that way because I fight bad arguments to justify its abolition. My problem is that the news is reporting a change in doctrine and the Pope and Archbishop Gomez are also inferring a change. But I don’t see a change. As evidence, I mention the following:
a) Truth is perennial. But the Pope and Archbishop Gomez cite a contingent (e.g. the efficacy of the modern prison system) as a reason to change a perennial truth. This is inherently contradictory.
[1 of 2, Continued on Next]
[2 of 2, Continued from Previous]
b) The reason isn’t the dignity of the human person. If it were, the Church would likely have to jettison Just War Theory as well.
c) The Pope didn’t issue a document with the weight of authority. Instead, he changes the Catechism which derives its authority from other sources. But the new catechism reference could be in line with Church teaching IF the new reference is considered to be an opinion derived from authority sources.
Well stated.
The most cruel, the most depraved and the most murderous are only held back by the most absolute of threats. In fact, in sentencing, and in plea bargaining, the risk of incurring the death penalty has often forced the most extreme criminals (Ted Bundy was a prime example) to give up the location of the bodies of many of their victims, at least giving closure to the victims’ families. Now, that is out. The victims and their families are the only ones who are completely ignored by this false compassion.
That’s an important point that many abolitionists don’t appreciate: having the death penalty as a threat is a tool that can be used to carry out justice in pre-trial negotiations. May the great United States never abolish the eternally, divinely willed and sanctioned penalty of death, for that penalty is sometimes deserved as a matter of retributive justice. May the Church’s misguided prelates return to the Church’s constant, universal magisterium of upholding the death penalty as legitimate.
Steve,
This link may bring things in perspective:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/popes-new-teaching-against-death-penalty-is-break-with-catholic-teaching-ew
The commentators ate well-known and have the credentials to sustain theor views.
Lou .. It is a bit awkward that a publication called Lifesite News is advocating for death.
The real crime here is the attempt to pinion the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the shifting sand of popular opinion, changing capabilities of the state, and anything else outside the rock of Truth.
The Rock, the Truth Himself, when asked about capital punishment said “Let him who has no sin cast the first stone.”
He’s wrong. They’re all wrong.
Why don’t you clean up the Religious Education Congress, Gomez?
This is all you need to know: Pope Francis’ closest allies turn out to be serial molesters, cover up homosexual activity in seminaries, or get caught up in gay orgies at the Vatican and the Pope had no idea about any of that, but he’s able to reliably ascertain the necessity of the death penalty throughout the entire world? Seriously? Who does he think he’s kidding about any of those things?
The Church is like Alice in Wonderland now. Nothing makes any sense anymore.
Douglas, this has nothing to do with homosexuality.
I think the point is that if the pope is out to lunch regarding homosexuals in the priesthood and episcopacy, which is obvious to everyone, how can we have confidence that he can make a sound judgment about worldwide application of the death penalty, in hundreds of different countries and social situations?
As I stated elsewhere, there is a link between Francis’ conception of the morality of the death penalty and that of hell. From Amoris,section 297:”No one can be condemned for ever, because
that is not the logic of the Gospel! Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried,
but of everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves. ” Once Francis laid hold to his conception of the gospel, he has now critiqued Christian orthodoxy by it. And no one knows where it will lead and when it will end. A very dangerous precedent has been set.
If that is the case, then why is “New Ways Ministries” trumpeting that because the Pope said that the death penalty is no longer accepted, that church teaching on sodomy can change too.
So, you go and tell the sodomites that this has nothing to do with them or their perversion.
I was going to say what you said. The homosexual lobby in the church jumped on this from day one to strategize about changing the catechism to approve of homosexual marriage and sex.
Since when do you follow the lead of New Ways Ministry?
Yes it does. Homosexualism is a denial of procreation and is fundamentally anti life, as are the murderers worthy of the death penalty. Feminism and homosexuality are 2 sides of the same coin (as feminism denies the differences between the sexes, so must it deny heterosexuality itself). Feminism doesn’t exist without abortion (murder) and the absence of the death penalty advances the cause of murderers. It’s all one big ball of wax, all these revolutionaries are bedfellows, they all seek to advance the cause of murderers, whether of the pre-born or the born. And Satan is nothing if not a murderer.
Wait, Ventura, you are saying that “feminism….seek[s] to advance the cause of murders, whether of the pre-born or the born”. So advocating for women’s rights is advocating for Charles Manson?
Gee, hit me with your best shot! That’s right pal – feminism has killed 61 million in this country. A life is a life. Death is death. Satan doesn’t make distinctions. Was Manson pro-life? (He committed abortion on Sharon Tate.) Is pro-abort “Catholic” Nancy Pelosi (to pick one horrific example among many) pro-life? These people (and you) make meaningless indignant distinctions to justify themselves. Murder is murder. Liberalism is liberalism. Go get on your knees before the Holy Sacrament and become useful.
Sounds like Archbishop Gomez is working overtime to earn a red hat from his boss.
You got it.
And every single one of these status-seeking Cardinals should be stripped of their office and made to get a break job (perhaps excepting Cardinal Burke and the surviving “dubia Cardinals”), on account of the destruction they’ve wreaked upon the Church, a ruined vineyard, which is on life support now.
Someone needs to tell would-be murderers that their victims have inviolable human dignity. You see, upholding the dignity of murderers means cheapening the lives of their innocent victims. What this means is that victims have no advocates and no one cares about them.
The pope is wrong. The archbishop is wrong. And I’m angry that the church is turning out to be just another political, flawed, human institution. Faith is gone. Gone. Everything everywhere is darkness and confusion and corruption and hopelessness.
It’s true that a person doesn’t lose their human dignity when they commit murder, but the issue of capital punishment doesn’t turn on human dignity. If this were true, Just War Theory would be impossible and we would all be pacifists. In fact, killing in self-defense would be questionable.
As people may or may not know, I voted against the death penalty in California and have argued against it on this website. But I very strongly object to using the Catechism [so it appears] as a political football.
Abp. Gomez is wrong in this, as he is in so many things. His wasted episcopacy has done little more than act as a shine to the retched Z-L excesses of the execrable Cardinal Mahony. The Pope is committing a formal heresy by advancing his personal opinion against established dogma. But our bishops will do little against this. First, they are largely corrupt. Second, they are careerists who do not wish to jeopardize their lifestyles and retirements. Third, they are poorly formed, a point noted by many. Fourth, it is the nature of such men to adore temporal power; just look at the craven cowards that joined Henry VIII’s English Church. Why was there only one St. John Fischer? Fools.
Yes, piling hatred upon hatred upon the shepherds of the Church–just because they are teaching the people of God authentically– is never good. It’s condemned by Christ Himself. Your accusations are all false, malicious. Repent!
You’re like a broken record. Yawn.
Hey jon, stop it already. Nobody appointed you to pontificate as Defender of the Faith. Your arguments (and responses to others’) are lightweight and simplistic; much worse than that, you are incredibly pompous and boring.
TS: Me, “boring”? For the record, I am not commenting here in order to entertain. you or anyone. I am here to point out the rightness of the Holy Father’s teaching on the death penalty: that it is in keeping with the magisterium of JP2 and Benedict. it is in keeping with the change in the third font of morality (circumstances). Listen to the living Magisterium. Respect life!
Jon,
It’s not in keeping with John Paul II if Francis is saying that the death penalty is intrinsically evil or that the death penalty is wrong in all places and in all times.
Steve, I don’t believe he said it is intrinsically evil. If you have a quote about that, let us know, but that’s not what the new part of the catchism says. Please stick to accuracy.
Anonymous,
I appreciate the comment, but please note that I said “if.” The reason is that I’m lost as to what’s going on.
On the one hand, I’ve read in two news accounts that there’s been a “development of doctrine” and a doctrinal change — a red flag. But I then look at everything else (e.g. Catholic teaching as expounded by John Paul and an absence of an encyclical et al.), and I see merely an application of John Paul’s teaching (i.e. no development of doctrine and no doctrinal change.). The new CCC paragraph, itself, seems to pull in both directions.
What is your take as to what is happening?
Anonymous,
To answer your question further, the questionable element in the new CCC paragraph involves human dignity. The CCC infers, in part, that the change is necessary because of an evolved understanding that people don’t loose their human dignity (true). Therefore, this change infers that the Vatican thinks that the presence of human dignity prevents the taking of any human life (false).
Rather, I would say that human dignity makes any killing a very serious matter, but it only makes unjust killing prohibited.
Therefore, I find the CCC reference questionable on whether the death penalty is intrinsically wrong.
Mr. Seitz, the only thing that I know is that there has been language added to the catechism. I’m not sure if it replaces the old language, which clearly led one to the same conclusion that John Paul, Benedict, and Francis all came to – in that in this day and age the death penalty in the modern age no longer meets the criteria for its just application. He didn’t say it was an intrinsic evil or even that this is an infallible finding. It’s actually less of a development of doctrine than Humanae Vitae, the proclamations against slavery, or the change on the sinfulness of loaning money. Even the apology that John Paul gave to Galileo is a more striking change.
I don’t recognize my church anymore.
“An authentic development of Catholic Doctrine.”
Laughable. More like, “See if they swallow this one.”
The great moral theology teacher Fr. Austin Fahothey SJ, for one, would not recognize the “faith” taught by this errant leadership.
Anonymous 2,
Regarding “See if they swallow this one,” I think you’re very close to what’s actually going on. Pope Francis’s pontificate has been riddled with confusion and lack of clarity. This current snafu is consistent with his past behavior and must be intentional since it’s riddled his pontificate. But why???
Nope, it’s not a change in doctrine… it’s a further explication of a prudential judgment. Don’t these bishops know theology?
AB Gomez said it himself in his article: “The Scriptures, along with saints and teachers in the Church’s tradition, justify the death penalty as a fitting punishment for those who commit evil or take another person’s life. And the Church has always recognized that governments and civil authorities have the right to carry out executions in order to protect their citizens’ lives and punish those guilty of the gravest crimes against human life and the stability of the social order.”
Therefore, the death penalty can never be absolutely prohibited.
Amen. He contradicts himself and the pope.
No, it’s not a development. That’s the whole point of the justification. It’s the same principles being applied to a different context, which leads to a different result. The death penalty constitutes an extreme act in our time, when a less extreme act would have been sufficient. At one time it was an appropriate act, but this is no longer the case. The history of the legal system and of the structure of governments has much to do with the change.
Governments, penal systems, and societies and prison security aren’t the same all over the world.
I would be fine with the pope saying that capital punishment is fundamentally a valid option for governments to employ but careful consideration must be given to whether employing it is justified in a particular circumstance and that such circumstances might be rare today.
The pope has essentially said that the death penalty isn’t justified anymore, at all. Well, what happens if there’s a worldwide economic catastrophe and societies, governments, penal systems and prison security all deteriorate? Under those changed circumstances, the DP might be more readily justifiable than now. For that reason, it’s irresponsible to say never.
Seems consistent with Church”s teaching that abortion is wrong.
Thank you mike m. It’s all about upholding the Gospel’s message of the inherent dignity of all human life! If I may add: other position of clinging to the “letter of the law” at the expense of depriving human souls more time to freely choose God’s redemption through Christ is evil.
The “authentic development” began early in the Church with St. Paul (Acts 25:11), Pius XII, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas – I guess they don’t count anymore or is it that they were never really “authentic”?
The death penalty is not inadmissible. What’s inadmissible is changing the catechism because you feel like it.
More destruction of the Church
“Who am I to judge” = one of the biggest death penalties of our generation.
Will the Pope next seek to change Church teaching on Hell?? Being sent by God to Hell for eternal punishment, is much worse than a sentence of capital punishment! And no human rights nor dignity!
See section 297 of Amoris laetitia:”No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! HereI am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried,but of everyone, in whatever situation
they find themselves.”
I a surprised that the link between the two issues has not been explored more fully.
LM, you forget that death penalty is imposed by someone else. Hell is freely chosen.
Anonymous,your contrast seems irrelevant to me. Behind both is Francis’ conception of the” logic of the gospel.” That is what ties the two issues together. Then again, someone who commits capital murder can be said to have freely chosen the death penalty, at least in a fantasy world where such events had that consequence consistently applied.
Quite plainly, the death penalty is adjudicated by the court system and carried out by the prison system. A person does not electrocute himself, or inject himself with a combination of lethal drugs. Hell is one’s own choice to live eternally outside the beatific vision. I’m not sure what could be clearer about that contrast.
Anonymous, you seemed to have either missed or avoided my point completely. My last sentence was tongue in cheek. It is the first two that comprised my main point.
Dan, I think both issues — capital punishment, and eternal damnation in Hell— need to be more fully explored.
Capital punishment is a worldly matter, not a religious matter. However, the penalty of being sent to Hell– is definitely a religious matter, not a worldly matter! The Church should teach and preach more about Christian morality, and help souls lead good earthly lives— and get to Heaven! That would help lessen the crime rate in the world, and the need for punishment of criminals. The Church needs to become very holy– and “re-Christianize” the world!
WRONG! If capital punishment were not a “religious matter”, then why has the Church EVER had an opinion about its morality or immorality? Thou shalt not kill is in the pillar of religious and moral law, my friend, for at least the last several millenia.
Anonymous– you missed the whole point! The Roman Catholic Church has nothing at all to do with the secular world, and secular legal systems, which exist in each country! The Church has for centuries had its own ecclesiastical courts, rarely used today– just for her own clergy. And the Death Penalty is not a punishment. There is a huge difference, Anonymous– between the realms of the sacred and the secular! The secular world does not necessarily acknowledge any religious or moral beliefs– including, belief in God. But the Church can influence the secular world, by preaching the Faith to them!
Ideally, I know that Christ wants us to take the Fifth Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” very seriously! Today, we live in a world that is so often violent, and lawless, with no basic Christian morality! In countries like Mexico, and in Latin America, and in the Middle East– the crime and violence is even worse! Many thousands of Christians are also being killed, by ISIS!! What shall we do, O Lord??
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/allowing-death-penalty-is-catholic-doctrine-and-cannot-be-overturned-two-ca
Love God. Love your neighbor.
Why are so many people upset because they can no longer use the state to kill someone they don’t want?
“If capital punishment is wrong in principle, then the Church has for two millennia consistently taught grave moral error and badly misinterpreted scripture.”
“And if the Church has been so wrong for so long about something so serious, then there is no teaching that might not be reversed, with the reversal justified by the stipulation that it be called a “development” rather than a contradiction.” —Canonist Edward Feser, 1st Things, 8/3/18
The Lord said to Peter, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”
He has the power to do this from Christ Himself.
Gay Pride 2020! Would Jesus judge?