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.
We agree Pope Francis made many confusing statements, poor appointments and problematic policy decisions. It was almost apocalyptic.
However, our contention is that all Magisterial documents and doctrine are protected by divine providence. We think this is the case here.
The state has doctrinal prerogative to the death penalty
The infallible revealed truth is that the state has the prerogative to capital punishment. Jesus uses it in his parable of the talents to demonstrate a just king.
But as for these enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and slaughter them in my presence. (Lk 19:27).
Paul discusses the Sword of the State:
But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (Rom 13:4)
Thomas Aquinas says the prerogative to execute criminals allows the state to "restore the equality of justice" (Summa question 64, Article 2). So our friend is correct that the State has the doctrinally guarded prerogative to execute murderers.
Doctrinal justification vs. prudential justification
The primary justification for capital punishment is doctrinal, and it answers the question
"does the state have the prerogative to execute murderers?"
The secondary justification is prudential, and it answers the question
"should the state exercise its prerogative to execute murderers?"
In Pope Francis' prudential judgment, the state should not exercise its right to do this. Matters of prudence are not infallible and are subject to change based on social context and multiple other factors.
Changes to the 1994 Catechism in 2018
The 2018 changes to Catechism are not materially different from the 1994 Catechism, although it is a development.
The 1994 Catechism, §2267 on capital punishment has an "IF... THEN ... " statement. This condition is still there in 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 inadmissible. It is still admissible. Let's think of it in computer programming logic. In the 1994 Catechism §2267
IF
- We can effectively prevent crime AND
- Render one who has committed 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
Capital 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.
We agree the last paragraph is confusing because it has two conditions. The word "consequently" at the beginning of the paragraph refers to the previous paragraph for the justification to forbid the death penalty (improved detention), and later in the paragraph the word "because" adds a second condition, the increased understanding of the "dignity of the person". It doesn't have the clarity of Cardinal Ratzinger who oversaw the 1994 Catechism.
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 is forbidden to 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
- Catholics should adhere to the teaching of the Catechism, but are not in a state of mortal sin for disagreeing with a prudential judgment.