On August 1, Cardinal Luis Ladaria issued a letter to the bishops of the world announcing that Pope Francis had approved a change to the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church dealing with the death penalty.
Here are some key facts for understanding this revision . . .
What does the Catechism now say?
The relevant passage now reads:
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” (Francis, Discourse, Oct. 11, 2017), and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
For a history of what the Catechism formerly said, see here.
Is this revision a surprise?
Not really. The last several popes—St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis—have taken a negative tone toward the death penalty, and the Catechism had already been revised once to reflect this. In addition, Cardinal Ladaria explains:
The Holy Father Pope Francis, in his Discourse on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the publication of the apostolic constitution Fidei Depositum, by which John Paul II promulgated the Catechism of the Catholic Church, asked that the teaching on the death penalty be reformulated so as to better reflect the development of the doctrine on this point that has taken place in recent times (1).
We thus already knew that a revision was under consideration.
Is this new revision an exercise of papal infallibility?
No. Although many individual teachings in the Catechism have previously been taught infallibly, the Catechism itself is not an infallible document. This is one reason it is capable of being revised.
To understand the level of authority of an individual teaching, one must look at the circumstances of an individual act of teaching to determine what level of authority it has.
As Cardinal Ladaria explains in his letter, Pope Francis approved the new revision that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) proposed, but he did not issue it in a document of his own. This is significant for two reasons:
- Popes cannot delegate their infallibility to departments of the Roman Curia, such as the CDF. Consequently, the approval that popes regularly give to CDF documents does not make them infallible.
- To issue an infallible teaching, popes use a special form of language, typically invoking their authority as the successor of Peter and using the phrase I/we define as a way of indicating that the teaching is definitive. (See, for example, the language Pius XII used in defining the Assumption of Mary in Munificentissimus Deus 44.) Pope Francis did not use this kind of language in granting the approval of the new revision.
What level of authority does the new revision have?
According to Cardinal Ladaria:
The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine (7).
As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.
According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful.
What if I have trouble accepting this teaching?
The Church recognizes that individuals can have difficulties accepting non-definitive Church teaching and that, in some cases, they may find themselves unable to accept them.
This situation is addressed—with specific application to theologians—in a 1990 instruction from the CDF known as Donum Veritatis, which states:
Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.
In any case there should never be a diminishment of that fundamental openness loyally to accept the teaching of the Magisterium as is fitting for every believer by reason of the obedience of faith. The theologian will strive then to understand this teaching in its contents, arguments, and purposes. This will mean an intense and patient reflection on his part and a readiness, if need be, to revise his own opinions and examine the objections which his colleagues might offer him (28-29).
Donum Veritatis further states:
It can also happen that at the conclusion of a serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium’s teaching without hesitation, the theologian’s difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive to him. Faced with a proposition to which he feels he cannot give his intellectual assent, the theologian nevertheless has the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question (31).
Of course, having a private disagreement does not entail a right to publicly oppose Church teaching. Fortunately, those experiencing such difficulties can have the consolation that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church “into all the truth” (John 16:13).
For a loyal spirit, animated by love for the Church, such a situation can certainly prove a difficult trial. It can be a call to suffer for the truth, in silence and prayer, but with the certainty that if the truth really is at stake, it will ultimately prevail (31).
Does the new revision indicate that the death penalty is intrinsically evil?
One might think so, since it says the death penalty is “inadmissible” because “it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.” However, a careful reading of the revision, and Cardinal Ladaria’s letter, suggests this is not the way the phrase should be understood. (Msgr. Charles Pope reaches the same conclusion.)
First, the revision notes that “a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.”
This refers to the fact that in the past the state’s penal sanctions were understood principally as administering justice (including divine justice) to wrongdoers, but today the Church understands them principally as seeking to protect society and (hopefully) rehabilitate the offender (see Ladaria 7 and the changes made to paragraph 2266 in the Catechism).
Second, in light of this new understanding of the function of the state’s penal sanctions, the death penalty could still be justified as a means of protecting society.
However, according to the revision, “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.”
From these considerations, one could understand the death penalty as something that involves “an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” but an attack that could be tolerated or even required in situations where there is no other way to effectively protect society.
This understanding appears to be confirmed by Cardinal Ladaria, who seems prepared to acknowledge that “the political and social situation of the past made the death penalty an acceptable means for the protection of the common good” (2).
He further seems prepared to acknowledge that, as in the previous edition of the Catechism, “it can be justified if it is ‘the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor’” (3).
He states that “given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people,” though, “certainly, it remains the duty of public authorities to defend the life of citizens” (7). He thus concludes:
All of this shows that the new formulation of number 2267 of the Catechism expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium. These teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat his crime (8).
The new revision would be “in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium” if it held that the death penalty was intrinsically evil and thus had always been wrong in the past. Instead, Cardinal Ladaria indicates that the revision is warranted by the changed understanding of the state’s penal sanctions and the development of more effective detention systems.
If the death penalty is not being judged intrinsically evil, what has changed?
It appears that Pope Francis has made a prudential judgment that, given present circumstances in society, there are no longer situations in which the death penalty is warranted.
Consequently, this judgment has been added to the social doctrine of the Church, which applies the underlying principles of its moral doctrine to concrete situations in society.
The underlying moral principles have not changed, but, in Pope Francis’s judgment, society has changed in a way that requires a different application of them.
This judgment is now reflected in the Church’s social doctrine, without contradicting prior teaching on the underlying moral principles. Thus Cardinal Ladaria says that the new formulation “expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.” It is the Church’s social doctrine that has developed, and its prior moral teachings have not been contradicted.
I wonder if the Holy Father thought this through enough. Example: Someone is in prison, sentenced to life without parole. He then kills a guard or another inmate while in prison, or orders the killing of a witness by his subordinates outside of prison. If life without parole is the maximum penalty, what is there to deter such actions?
I’m still not sure: are we required to believe this “development of doctrine”? Even if “the development of more effective detention systems” are not as effective as the Holy Father may think they are?
“If life without parole is the maximum penalty, what is there to deter such actions?”
The 100+ countries that currently do not use the death penalty appear to have found some way of handling the issue.
And that answers my question…how?
Bill 912, Just because some governments fail to do what is required to ensure that prison guards are properly protected, or, that prisoners cannot kill from inside their cells, does not mean the death penalty is the only/last resort. Other measures can be taken, e.g., monitoring communications (even with an attorney,) restricted movement, etc. God Bless!
That’s your response to the victims FOLLOWING El Chapo’s escapes??? “El Chapo” in Mexico escaped twice killing at least five people in the process. Witnesses and jurors were murdered. The Judge was murdered as well. But hey, detention systems around the world are sufficiently advanced, so no worries.
Extortion, kidnaping, and bargining for inprisoned murderers.
Capital Punishment is a deterrent, many have made deals saving lives and finding bodies in exchange.
“Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.” This new language seems to suggest that previous Church teaching on the death penalty was based, at least in part, on an incomplete “awareness” that human dignity isn’t lost after the commission of crimes. I don’t think that’s correct, and the idea that new technical solutions to criminal justice would make the death penalty invalid in all cases seems to fly in the face of the deposit of faith. Not all human societies are equally developed or have access to the same technologies, and never will. Therefore, technical solutions can never be the answer to philosophical questions. Lastly, I take issue with churchmen stating that a new teaching is consistent with an older teaching merely because he so states, and it’s rather convenient that those who disagree are called to “suffer in silence.” In other words, we are effectively ordered not to speak out against inconsistencies apparent to a child based on arguments from authority, which are the weakest kind of arguments to make. This does nothing for my faith except cause me to question the validity of the current visible Church and its professed head, especially in light of all the other scandal and nonsense that seems to emanate from Rome of late.
Juan, I believe Pope Francis, along with John Paul II & Benedict XVI, is making the point that since the horrors of WWII, when the power of the state to LEGALLY execute prisoners was grossly abused in order to murder millions, the Church’s awareness of what happens when governments reject the dignity of every person leads down a road none of us want to see again. JPII & BXVI lived through this, which I’m sure informed their decisions to call for the end of capital punishment. With that context in mind, it seems very reasonable that states should work to ensure that criminals cannot harm innocents without using the death penalty as a crutch.
It certainly shouldn’t cause you to question your faith. God Bless!
Nick, you don’t think St. Paul could have said the same thing about Rome’s abuse of authority back in the first century, yet that did not preclude him from stating that Rome had the right and authority to execute the evildoer.
Michael,
Yes, but Paul was tried, as was his right as a Roman citizen, before the insidious persecutions of Nero, and other Roman emperors decades & centuries later. And, there were magnitudes more martyrs in the 20th century than there were in the previous 19, combined. The millions murdered in the first half of the 20th century were unprecedented in human history.
Mr. Akin,
What then do you make of Pope Francis’ statement in the Oct 11th address referenced in the footnote of the revised Catechism text that the death penalty is “per se contrary to the Gospel”? Does not that imply that it is intrinsically evil? In fact, the whole tenor of that address seems to imply that.
It is being stated that the death penalty is an attack on the inviolability of the dignity of the human person. However, it would seem that the death penalty CANNOT be an attack on the dignity of the human person precisely because, if it were, then the Church positively taught an egregious error when it taught that the State had the right and duty to impose the death penalty; i.e., the Church taught that the State had the right and duty to attack the dignity of the human person. How can this be reconciled?
Michael, It is not an error or contradition because, as with all rights & duties, capital punishment can be used wrongly, and abused. God permitted the death penalty because of the hardness of men’s hearts, like divorce & slavery. Cain & Lamech were spared execution for killing, because God doesn’t wish death for the wicked, He wants them to repent & live (see Gn.4 & Ez.33).
The Church tolerated slavery & torture for centuries. But, only under certain circumstances, in certain cases. The Church changed that teaching & now forbids the practice/use of torture & slavery.
Executing someone for vandalism or littering would be intrinsically evil, yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and would violate the dignity of the person. The position of Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Franicis is that executing any criminal is no longer necessary in order to protect society, in our present time. If it’s not necessary, it becomes abusive. If you can discipline your child without resorting to spanking for some serious infraction, but, choose to spank anyway, is that not an abuse of your parental authority? God Bless!
The problem with your examples is that while slavery and torture may have been tolerated, they were never positively taught by the Church. The same cannot be said of capital punishment. Besides, life imprisonment has been a possibility in many societies for centuries, yet the Church never claimed that protection of the community was the primary purpose of the death penalty.
Capital punishment and its legitimate use is certainly a moral issue, and the Church certainly has the authority to lay out principles for its moral and licit use. But how can the pope declare that the conditions are met everywhere and in all cases globally at this point in time such that its imposition by the State is now inadmissible. The pope has no competency or authority in this arena? And where are the data? What metrics were used to come to this conclusion? What was the last society or country to finally have a sufficiently advanced detention system to warrant a universal ‘inadmissibility’ of capital punishment? What were the acceptance and rejection criteria for knowing whether such a condition of advancement was met? The pope or the Church has no competence or expertise in assessing the condition of a society’s penal system because determining the condition of a penal system to adequately protect society is not an issue of faith and morals; it’s a matter of expert opinion and prudential judgment of the State.
Michael,
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “positively taught by the Church”? Several Early Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Athenagoras of Athens, Tertullian, Hippolytus) were practically pacifists, some arguing that Christians shouldn’t even serve in the military. Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom agreed that the secular authority had the right to execute criminals, but urged them not to and show mercy. Augustine thought it should be rarely used, and only out of “extreme necessity.” He also said:
– Mike Aquilina, The early Church and the death penalty, Sept. 22, 2016
Pope Francis, like JPII & BXVI, isn’t making a judgment on every nation’s ability to protect her citizens. He’s declaring that now the Church will work towards ending capital punishment in the 60 odd nations where it is still practiced. Just because some nations have poor justice & prison systems is no excuse for not improving them. In today’s modern world, even poor nations can afford proper prisons. Since, they can afford weapons, armies, & air forces. Data & statistics have no bearing on what is moral. The question still remains, if death is not required, is it not immoral to continue to execute? God Bless!
Nick – the short answer is ‘no’. It is not immoral to execute if death is commensurate with the gravity of the crime committed.
What I mean by “positively taught by the Church” is the explicit, unambiguous, and authoritative language the Church used to teach in favor of the legitimate, moral and licit use of the death penalty by the rightful authority of the State.
Actually, that is precisely what Pope Francis is doing. He’s making a judgment on every nation’s ability to protect her citizens. He states as much; not sure why you think that he is not this judgment.
Jimmy,
If there is still the possibility that the death penalty can be applied, then the revision by Saint John Paul II would have been sufficient. There would have been no reason to change tge catechism.
I think that the change was meant to totally outlaw the use of capital punishment.
Cardinal Lardaria states “This conclusion is reached taking into account the new understanding of penal sanctions applied by the modern State, which should be oriented above all to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of the criminal. Finally, given that modern society possesses more efficient detention systems, the death penalty becomes unnecessary as protection for the life of innocent people.”
The first factor seems to base the Church’s moral judgment on trends in how the social sciences look at crime and punishment. The second is based on technological and managerial advances in effective incarceration. Both of these factors are subject to change. Thus, the revision seems to reflect a prudential judgment. But how sound is the judgment? Did the Holy See commission or review any statistical studies on violence committed by prison escapees? And even if the judgment is sound, as a prudential judgment (like whether a particular conflict is a just war), does it actually call for religious submission of mind and will?
Thomas Valli,
I’m not an expert in philosophy or theology, but I have struggled with the Church’s teaching on capital punishment for 30 years, going back and forth a couple of times. I’ve spent a lot of time reading and in prayerful contemplation on the subject, starting out as a big supporter of using the death penalty rather liberally, for many different crimes. So, I understand the arguments on both sides.
Every use of the death penalty is a prudential judgment. Not only does it depend on the severity of the crime & the particular circumstances of each case, but, it ALWAYS has to be used as a LAST RESORT, in order to protect society. That is the only criteria that turns an otherwise immoral act (i.e., killing an unarmed person who is not an immediate threat to anyone) into a morally licit act, and relieves those involved in the decision from the culpabilty of mortal sin.
Because the moral object of the execution is the protection of society, not the death of the criminal. The killing of the guilty falls under the principle of double effect, wherein the intent is the protection of innocents, not homicide. Much in the same way that targeting a train carrying military supplies, or bombing the coast of France in June of 1944, even though these acts will kill civilians, is morally licit because the intent is not to target & kill non-combatants. The legitimate, moral object is to target enemy military supplies, armaments, and personnel. Or, when an individual uses deadly force to protect his own life. The moral intent is to stop the attacker, not his death.
Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Franicis’ position has been that it is no longer necessary to execute criminals to protect society. So, if you use the death penalty when it is not necessary, that becomes an immoral act. In a similar manner, does the Church still condone the stoning of adulterers, Sabbath breakers, parent strikers, and the incestuous? God Bless!
Michael,
There was no reply button on your 3rd response to me. So, I’m posting here.
Bad, corrupt regimes & incompetent bureaucracies do not exempt them from doing more to protect their citizens. Mexico is an oil-rich country. They have the means, they just choose not to use it. El Chapo is an example of how corruption endangers society, not the banning of the death penalty. God Bless!
Pope Francis has rightly corrected a wrong in the Church. All those who in the past have approved the death penalty- have their hands stained with blood- its unforgivable..Try however hard you may; the New Testament does not support the death penalty.
Then God’s hands are stained with blood; He COMMANDED the death penalty for certain crimes.