Is Francis’s Revised Teaching on the Death Penalty a Development of Doctrine?
THE PRIMACY OF MERCY — OR THE END OF MERCY ?
“The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.”
— First Vatican Council (emphasis added)
This August Pope Francis made an extraordinary alteration to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on the subject of the death penalty. It is not an exaggeration to say that the change has been extremely controversial. First, the background: Over the past 40 years the Church — from popes to local bishops’ conferences — has come to view the application of the death penalty with disfavor. This shift was clearly indicated in the revised section on the death penalty in the second edition of the CCC.
The original 1992 edition of the CCC read:
2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty….
The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by the offense. When the punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender, it takes on the value of expiation. Moreover, punishment has the effect of preserving public order and the safety of persons….
2267 If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
The 1997 revision read:
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation….
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 more in conformity to 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 definitely 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 nonexistent.”
The last paragraph was added to reflect Pope St. John Paul II’s teaching in Evangelium Vitae (EV; 1995) and quotes from paragraph 56 of that encyclical.
Here is Pope Francis’s further revision:
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 last paragraph was added to reflect Pope Francis’s October 2017 address to the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization and quotes that speech.
Enjoyed reading this?
READ MORE! REGISTER TODAYSUBSCRIBE
"Catholicism's Intellectual Prizefighter!"
- Karl Keating
Strengthen the Catholic cause.
SUPPORT NOR TODAYSUBSCRIBE
You May Also Enjoy
Why would Pope Francis form a group to study the composition of the 1968 encyclical if the intent is not to fundamentally change its message?
For humanists, the religious impulse is redirected from traditional religions toward a secularized system of values such as egalitarianism and bodily health.
Berrigan, in casting his lot with the condemned unborn, stands again accused of high treason for defying legalistic wisdom and the current Zeitgeist.