How is Dignitas Infinita's teaching on the death penalty not a contradiction of previous doctrine?

[jas3]

The recently published declaration, Dignitas Infinita, says this about the death penalty:

In addressing some of the many grave violations of human dignity today, we can draw upon the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, which emphasized that “all offenses against life itself, such as murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, and willful suicide” must be recognized as contrary to human dignity. Furthermore, the Council affirmed that “all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures,” also infringe upon our dignity. Finally, it denounced “all offenses against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where individuals are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons.” Here, one should also mention the death penalty, for this also violates the inalienable dignity of every person, regardless of the circumstances. In this regard, we must recognize that “the firm rejection of the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she has a place in this universe. If I do not deny that dignity to the worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone. I will give everyone the possibility of sharing this planet with me, despite all our differences.”

This statement that the death penalty violates human dignity "regardless of circumstances" seems to be saying that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. The only way I can see this not being the case is if it's not necessarily sinful to violate human dignity, which seems to run counter to the intention of the document and Pope Francis's own beliefs given his statement a few months ago that the death penalty is "a sin." It would also undercut the strength of the document's condemnation of gender theory, surrogacy, abortion, etc., which are all based on how these things violate human dignity.

The wording of the document also removes the foundation for some of the earlier harmonizations of the change to the Catechism with prior doctrine, in that one of the defenses of the change (see for example Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty) was that the death penalty might be rejected on the basis of current circumstances rather than being intrinsically immoral. But if it is a violation of human dignity "regardless of circumstances," then it can't also be a violation because of current circumstances.

How can this new statement on the death penalty be consistent with existing doctrine?

 

[Simon_Templar]

The recently published declaration, Dignitas Infinita, says this about the death penalty:

This statement that the death penalty violates human dignity "regardless of circumstances" seems to be saying that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. The only way I can see this not being the case is if it's not necessarily sinful to violate human dignity, which seems to run counter to the intention of the document and Pope Francis's own beliefs given his statement a few months ago that the death penalty is "a sin." It would also undercut the strength of the document's condemnation of gender theory, surrogacy, abortion, etc., which are all based on how these things violate human dignity.

The wording of the document also removes the foundation for some of the earlier harmonizations of the change to the Catechism with prior doctrine, in that one of the defenses of the change (see for example Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty) was that the death penalty might be rejected on the basis of current circumstances rather than being intrinsically immoral. But if it is a violation of human dignity "regardless of circumstances," then it can't also be a violation because of current circumstances.

How can this new statement on the death penalty be consistent with existing doctrine?

Well, I suppose it would depend on whether "violating human dignity" is a sin in all circumstances.

For example, I think most of us would probably agree that war violates human dignity, but war is not a sin in all cases.
Most of us would probably agree that killing, in some sense, violates human dignity, but killing is not a sin in all cases.

IF this is meant to mean that the death penalty is inherently evil and is sin in all cases, then it is not only contradicting previous teaching, but it is also contradicting Sacred Scripture itself, and as such is wrong.

 

[AlexB23]

The recently published declaration, Dignitas Infinita, says this about the death penalty:

This statement that the death penalty violates human dignity "regardless of circumstances" seems to be saying that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral. The only way I can see this not being the case is if it's not necessarily sinful to violate human dignity, which seems to run counter to the intention of the document and Pope Francis's own beliefs given his statement a few months ago that the death penalty is "a sin." It would also undercut the strength of the document's condemnation of gender theory, surrogacy, abortion, etc., which are all based on how these things violate human dignity.

The wording of the document also removes the foundation for some of the earlier harmonizations of the change to the Catechism with prior doctrine, in that one of the defenses of the change (see for example Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty) was that the death penalty might be rejected on the basis of current circumstances rather than being intrinsically immoral. But if it is a violation of human dignity "regardless of circumstances," then it can't also be a violation because of current circumstances.

How can this new statement on the death penalty be consistent with existing doctrine?

Well, from a Christian perspective, execution raises several ethical concerns. First and foremost is the value of human life. As created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), every human life is precious and sacred. This belief extends to the lives of those who have committed heinous crimes. In the Old Testament, there are numerous instances where God commands the ancient Israelites to show mercy and compassion (e.g., Exodus 34:6-7; Deuteronomy 15:11, 27:19). The New Testament teachings of Jesus further emphasize the importance of love and forgiveness (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36).

Moreover, the Christian belief in the sanctity of human life extends to the unborn and those nearing death. The taking of any human life, including that of a criminal, is considered a grave violation of this sacredness. Additionally, some folks argue that capital punishment may ultimately perpetuate a cycle of violence and revenge. The death of the convicted criminal does not bring back the lives of their victims or provide any solace to their families. Furthermore, there is a risk that the execution of an innocent person may occur due to human error or bias. These concerns align with the Christian emphasis on mercy, forgiveness, and the inherent worth of every human life.

So, this is why I as a Catholic Christian, oppose executions.

 

[Solo81]

It is a contradiction but the document and its' authors made no effort to reconcile, expand or clarify that issue.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Well, from a Christian perspective, execution raises several ethical concerns. First and foremost is the value of human life. As created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), every human life is precious and sacred. This belief extends to the lives of those who have committed heinous crimes. In the Old Testament, there are numerous instances where God commands the ancient Israelites to show mercy and compassion (e.g., Exodus 34:6-7; Deuteronomy 15:11, 27:19). The New Testament teachings of Jesus further emphasize the importance of love and forgiveness (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-36).

Moreover, the Christian belief in the sanctity of human life extends to the unborn and those nearing death. The taking of any human life, including that of a criminal, is considered a grave violation of this sacredness. Additionally, some folks argue that capital punishment may ultimately perpetuate a cycle of violence and revenge. The death of the convicted criminal does not bring back the lives of their victims or provide any solace to their families. Furthermore, there is a risk that the execution of an innocent person may occur due to human error or bias. These concerns align with the Christian emphasis on mercy, forgiveness, and the inherent worth of every human life.

So, this is why I as a Catholic Christian, oppose executions.

The question isn't whether we should support executions per say, but whether the death penalty is inherently immoral in all cases. As you point out God recommends mercy in scripture, but God also commanded the death penalty in scripture. Thus, if we now define the death penalty as inherently immoral, we create a situation where we must either say scripture is false, or God commanded sin. Neither of which I will do.

 

[AlexB23]

The question isn't whether we should support executions per say, but whether the death penalty is inherently immoral in all cases. As you point out God recommends mercy in scripture, but God also commanded the death penalty in scripture. Thus, if we now define the death penalty as inherently immoral, we create a situation where we must either say scripture is false, or God commanded sin. Neither of which I will do.

Well, we should go with what Jesus said. The New Testament is all about forgiveness, while the OT was more about destruction. We live in NT times, so it is advisable that we try to stick to NT teachings.

 

[Michie]

Forgiveness though does not always negate justice. We often forget that.

 

[AlexB23]

Forgiveness though does not always negate justice. We often forget that.

True, but justice can be done in ways without killing people. Galatians 6:1 says, "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness." And Romans 12:19: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”"

Also, @Michie , I typically only respond to posts that quote one another, cos I am not sure who the post is directed to. So, it would be helpful for other forum users to use quotes, as in what I did above.


Now, here is my secular take on this (cos some secular ideas are pretty good):

Several arguments oppose the use of capital punishment as an ethical response to crime. First and foremost is the idea that execution constitutes a violation of human dignity. Human beings possess inherent value, regardless of their actions or circumstances. The act of taking someone's life, even in retribution for a heinous crime, denies the moral agency and inherent worth of that individual.

Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the fallibility and inconsistency of the legal system in meting out capital punishment. The risk of executing an innocent person is ever present, as evidenced by numerous cases of wrongful convictions and exonerations. In addition, the application of capital punishment is often influenced by factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and geography, raising questions about fairness and impartiality.

Another argument against execution from a secular moral perspective is the belief that rehabilitation and restorative justice are more effective means of addressing crime. By focusing on the root causes of criminal behavior and providing opportunities for individuals to reintegrate into society, we can create a safer and more just world without resorting to the taking of human life.

 

[Michie]

True, but justice can be done in ways without killing people. Galatians 6:1 says, "Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness." And Romans 12:19: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”"

Also, @Michie , I typically only respond to posts that quote one another, cos I am not sure who the post is directed to. So, it would be helpful for other forum users to use quotes, as in what I did above.


Now, here is my secular take on this (cos some secular ideas are pretty good):

Several arguments oppose the use of capital punishment as an ethical response to crime. First and foremost is the idea that execution constitutes a violation of human dignity. Human beings possess inherent value, regardless of their actions or circumstances. The act of taking someone's life, even in retribution for a heinous crime, denies the moral agency and inherent worth of that individual.

Furthermore, there are concerns regarding the fallibility and inconsistency of the legal system in meting out capital punishment. The risk of executing an innocent person is ever present, as evidenced by numerous cases of wrongful convictions and exonerations. In addition, the application of capital punishment is often influenced by factors such as race, socioeconomic status, and geography, raising questions about fairness and impartiality.

Another argument against execution from a secular moral perspective is the belief that rehabilitation and restorative justice are more effective means of addressing crime. By focusing on the root causes of criminal behavior and providing opportunities for individuals to reintegrate into society, we can create a safer and more just world without resorting to the taking of human life.

I’m not pro death penalty. I’m making it clear that forgiveness does not negate justice. And we must remember the victims and their families as well.

 

[AlexB23]

I’m not pro death penalty. I’m making it clear that forgiveness does not negate justice. And we must remember the victims and their families as well.

Agreed. It is good that we are pro-life. The justice can be served differently, such as in a lifetime, or extremely long jail sentence, with rehab classes during this lifetime period.

 

[Michie]

Agreed. It is good that we are pro-life. The justice can be served differently, such as in a lifetime, or extremely long jail sentence, with rehab classes during this lifetime period.

There are better ways to go about things imo. I just do not want those that have suffered to be lost in the shuffle and they often are.

 

[AlexB23]

There are better ways to go about things imo. I just do not want those that have suffered to be lost in the shuffle and they often are.

There are better ways to go about things, including repaying the victims who perished under the hands of the criminal.

 

[Michie]

There are better ways to go about things, including repaying the victims who perished under the hands of the criminal.

Yeah. Good luck with that. You can’t get blood out of a turnip

 

[AlexB23]

Yeah. Good luck with that. You can’t get blood out of a turnip

Yeah, it seems impossible to extract any more information without waiting for how the American Catholic churches respond to the April 8th decree by the Vatican.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Well, we should go with what Jesus said. The New Testament is all about forgiveness, while the OT was more about destruction. We live in NT times, so it is advisable that we try to stick to NT teachings.

This verges towards the heresy known as Marcionism.

God does not change. Jesus is the same God who commanded the Death Penalty in the OT.

But if you prefer the New Testament here is what St. Paul has to say about it...

Romans 13:1-4

13 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

Again, my point is not that we should seek to use the Death Penalty today. Conditions have changed and it may no longer be necessary. If it is not necessary, we should not use it. However, it is wrong to the point I would consider to be heresy to say that the death penalty is inherently morally evil under all circumstances.

 

[AlexB23]

This verges towards the heresy known as Marcionism.

God does not change. Jesus is the same God who commanded the Death Penalty in the OT.

But if you prefer the New Testament here is what St. Paul has to say about it...

Romans 13:1-4


Again, my point is not that we should seek to use the Death Penalty today. Conditions have changed and it may no longer be necessary. If it is not necessary, we should not use it. However, it is wrong to the point I would consider to be heresy to say that the death penalty is inherently morally evil under all circumstances.

Hey, thanks for informing me on this. Anyways, I am backing out of this thread, cos this is a complex theological concept. Marcionism, never heard of it, but I do not want to be a heretic. I do see a major difference between the OT and NT though. But hey, at least we both agree that we should not use executions anymore.

 

[jas3]

Well, I suppose it would depend on whether "violating human dignity" is a sin in all circumstances.

For example, I think most of us would probably agree that war violates human dignity, but war is not a sin in all cases.

Yes, this is the only way I can see the declaration being in harmony with previous teaching, but then that seems to open the door to other things being permissible if circumstances are drastic enough.

For example, a couple might cite the damage to their mental health from their inability to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term as reason to go forward with surrogacy, even though it's a violation of human dignity. If the death penalty is able to be used morally despite it being a violation of dignity, they could argue that this would be a "moral use" of surrogacy despite it being a violation of dignity.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Yes, this is the only way I can see the declaration being in harmony with previous teaching, but then that seems to open the door to other things being permissible if circumstances are drastic enough.

For example, a couple might cite the damage to their mental health from their inability to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term as reason to go forward with surrogacy, even though it's a violation of human dignity. If the death penalty is able to be used morally despite it being a violation of dignity, they could argue that this would be a "moral use" of surrogacy despite it being a violation of dignity.

Yes, I think the death penalty line is wrong and was a foolish inclusion, I was just kind of thinking out loud about what the exact wording could mean. I don't think that is what they actually meant.

 

[zippy2006]

How can this new statement on the death penalty be consistent with existing doctrine?

I have not yet had time to sit down and read the new document, but your analysis seems perfectly correct given the quote you provided.

What will happen (and what has already happened in the past) is that the defenders of this document will claim that past teaching on capital punishment was never irreformable. It seems undeniably true that this novel teaching on capital punishment is not irreformable. The tension will eventually need to be resolved in one direction or another.

 

[o_mlly]

How can this new statement on the death penalty be consistent with existing doctrine?

The theological gymnastics required to do so are beyond me.

Capital punishment (CP) has never been taught as an intrinsic evil but only circumstantially so. The identity of the offender and the determination of guilt must always be beyond a reasonable doubt. St. JPII further restricted the use of CP (which has always been only conditionally permitted) adding the condition that CP must also be a last resort to protect society (Evangelium Vitae, p56).

The death of any human being is always an evil effect. However, all human acts that cause such an effect are not evil. Lethal acts of self-defense are morally permissible if the intended effect is to save the life of an innocent; the death of the aggressor, the unintended effect, is tolerated.

The object of a human act is the rational end in view. That is, the "object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person" (Veritas Splendor, p78). A proximate end of CP is the death of an individual human being, an evil end. (Pope Francis is correct -- CP violates the dignity of that person.) Another end in view of CP is the protection of society from an evil doer; a good end. The former evil end is tolerated in order to achieve the intended latter good end.

I suspect Pope Francis' teaching is not universal in place and time but dependent on each society's present ability to protect itself from evildoers without resorting to capital punishment. If so then Francis' teaching is in concert with St. JPII. Society's that lack the wealth and/or developed penal systems to sentence capital offenders to life imprisonment must still protect their citizenry from evildoers. In those societies, capital punishment remains a last resort, a tolerated evil necessary in order to achieve a greater good.

The USCCB took that position-- the 1996 USCCB Statement on the Death Penalty, December 1996 lists punishment's primary purposes:

"Traditionally, punishment has been administered for one or more of the following reasons: deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation of the criminal, and the protection of society. ... We conclude that under the circumstances prevailing in society today the death penalty as punishment for reasons of deterrence, retribution, or the protection of society cannot be justified."

Statement on the Death Penalty, December 1996

December 1996 In the Pope's 1995 message, delivered in Rutherford, NJ, he calls on American Catholics "to be committed to the defense of life in all its stag...

www.usccb.org

​

However, the use of lethal force in an act of self-defense is only permitted in the moment of aggression. CP does not fit nicely into the self-defense doctrine on the moral use of lethal force. More innovative thinking will be required in order to make CP compatible with the long-standing self-defense doctrine ... Come Holy Spirit.