Catechism on Capital Punishment
Is it an heretical change to Church teaching?
We got an email from a sincere and faithful Catholic:
Capital punishment is ... formally taught to be a sin by the Catholic Church, which makes me and others who simply cannot accept this false teaching to be formal heretics in the eyes of the Vatican and every other diocese in the world.
In other words, because I cannot accept what I know to be a false and unApostolic teaching (a liberal-modernist imposition on the Church that was rejected by all the fathers, Aquinas, and every pope before Francis), I am in the very same position as someone like Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi or some other pro-abortion politician who rejects the Church's formal teaching in Humanae Vitae, etc. and so cannot receive the Eucharist worthily or without canonical violation.
Response:
We agree Pope Francis made many confusing and proplematic statements and policy decisions. It may have been the most problematic papacy of history.
However, our contention is that Magisterial documents and doctrine have divine providence that protect them even from problematic popes. We think this is the case here.
The 2018 changes to Catechism are not materially different from the 1994 Catechism.
The 1994 Catechism, §2267 on capital punishment has an "IF... THEN ... " statement before and after the 2018 changes. The IF conditions are necessary for the THEN policy to be binding
The Church has not unconditionally defined the death penalty as inadmissable. It is still admissible. Let's think of it in computer programming logic. In the 1994 Catechism:
IF
- We can effectively prevent crime AND
- Render one who has commited an offence incapable of doing harm
THEN
We do do not exercise death penalty
ELSE
The Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty. Since this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Show full text of §2267 before the 2018 changes
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 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 definitively 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 non-existent.¹⁶⁸
The 2018 changes to §2267 provides stronger language against Capital Punishment but it is still tied to conditions. The word consequently makes the last paragraph of §2267 dependent on the items that it was referring to in the previous paragraph.
IF we have:
- Increasing awareness of dignity of the human ...
- New understanding of significance of penal sanctions ...
- More effective systems of detention [that can defend human lives against the unjust aggressor]
THEN
Captial punishment is inadmissible
ELSE
The condition of the "inadmissibility" of capital punishment is null and void. Since this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
Show full text of §2267 after the 2018 changes
2267 Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
The Church teaching has not materially changed.
Our friend who disagrees with the changes to §2267 is not in a position to be excluded from communion for several reasons:
- Holding an opinion (on anything) is not a mortal sin. Unconfessed mortal sin is the only reason a Catholic should not take communion. It must meet these conditions (1) objectively grave action (2) full knowledge (3) full consent to do the action
- The official Church teaching is not an unqualified forbidance of capital punishment. It is a conditional statement, similar to the 1994 Catechism §2267
- Therefore, one can hold a view of allowing capital punishments IF one believes the current detention system is not sufficient to keep society safe. This may not be that hard to demonstrate. This is no different from the view of the Church Fathers. They also had 'IF... THEN..." conditions on capital punishment.