Changed Morality in the Catholic Church

[Josiah]

Our Catholic brother notes the change in the past few weeks in the morality of the Catholic Church regarding capitol punishment.



The now rejected, former official teaching:

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 are 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 offence 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 non-existent."

The new, changed morality:

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”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Personally, I agreed with the now rejected morality that was the Catholic one a few days ago.... it at least left room for God to be moral, just and right and not a sinner for actually (at least) condoning it in some cases. Like the now rejected former Catholic morality, I think there are no longer conditions that suggest it (it no longer being necessary) but I don't agree that it's fundamentally sinful and so God is sinful in so many places in His Scripture. I think morality doens't change - but conditions do and thus applications might. I have never thought the death penalty necessary or best in our modern society where humane, even life-long imprisonment is an option. But it is obvious and undeniable that God's morality is that the punishment, per se, is not evil - which the Catholic Church now condemns, which IMO means it now is condemning God or at least regarding Him as sinful in the MANY places in Scripture where He is at least condoning it among the peoples to whom He wrote.

Do you think it good and wise for a denomination to officially change morality? Do you agree with this very recent change in RCC teaching? Remembering all the many Scriptures where God speaks of capitol punishment (I can't think of one where He does negatively), what to you think God might think about this condemnation?

I wonder, too, about the theological implications of this - that mandating death for wrong is fundamentally sinful. Doesn't God Himself say "The wages of sin is death?" Doesn't traditional, orthodox theology often teach that the death of Jesus was necessary?




Your view?





.

 

[psalms 91]

I dont agree it is sinful to inflict the death penelty but I am against it for many reasons not the least of which is so many have been wrongfully convicted, also the justice system is unfair and biased towards blacks and possibly other minorities. All in all I am opposed to the death penelty

 

[Josiah]

I dont agree it is sinful to inflict the death penelty but I am against it for many reasons not the least of which is so many have been wrongfully convicted, also the justice system is unfair and biased towards blacks and possibly other minorities. All in all I am opposed to the death penelty

Me too. But the new morality of the RCC is that granting death for wrong is fundamentally SINFUL..... Thus, we must consider all those many, many Scriptures where GOD at the very least condones it. And the very point God at least permits every human to DIE. And the point that God Himself says, "the wages of sin is death" and the point that Scripture itself indicates that the killing of Jesus was necessary (many Christians would explain, "as the JUST punishment of our sin which Jesus took upon Himself). So, is God sinful? Is God wrong in His morality? Does God need the post 2018 Catholic Church to correct His morality? OR (as the RCC said in it's now rejected position) it simply is no longer appropriate given other options now available?




.

 

[tango]

I think that a church changing its view on morality needs to be done for very good reason, otherwise it looks like the church is just abandoning what it stood for in order to be seen as more "relevant" or "accessible" or whatever today's buzzword is.

It's all well and good to argue about "the dignity of the person" but what is suddenly new that means the kind of person typically sentenced to death is suddenly deserving of dignity where apparently they weren't as recently as last year?

I have reservations about the death penalty, not least the fact it is impossible to correct especially amidst growing concern about corrupt police officers. It's one thing to spend a decade in prison for something you didn't do but at least you can be released and duly compensated. Once you've gone to the chair it's too late to do anything to correct the situation. That said, in principle I agree that some crimes are best punished by execution.

 

[Josiah]

I think that a church changing its view on morality needs to be done for very good reason, otherwise it looks like the church is just abandoning what it stood for in order to be seen as more "relevant" or "accessible" or whatever today's buzzword is.

It's all well and good to argue about "the dignity of the person" but what is suddenly new that means the kind of person typically sentenced to death is suddenly deserving of dignity where apparently they weren't as recently as last year?

I have reservations about the death penalty, not least the fact it is impossible to correct especially amidst growing concern about corrupt police officers. It's one thing to spend a decade in prison for something you didn't do but at least you can be released and duly compensated. Once you've gone to the chair it's too late to do anything to correct the situation. That said, in principle I agree that some crimes are best punished by execution.

Good points all.....


To ME, there's two different issues here: What is or is not moral? Within that, what is most appropriate? Agreeing with the now rejected FORMER moral teaching of the RCC, I don't think God is sinful for condoning the capitol punishment for the miurderer BUT I would argue that in our modern world - where life in a humane prison is possible (with legal issues, often cheaper!), the BETTER option is imprisonment. And that would be my passionate position. But I disagree that God was evil and immoral and violating the dignity of life by condoning the death penalty and for the killing of Jesus and for holding "the wages of sin is death."



- Josiah

 

[Albion]

I agree.

And by the way, I sent you a PM, Josiah, but it was blocked on account of your file being full. If you delete some entries, it may come through, but if not, it is not critical.

 

[NewCreation435]

I wonder what the Catholic church makes of it that God ordered some people executed in the Old Testament. If the death penalty is so bad when was it okay for the Israelites to carry it out in the Old Testament at God's command?

The Old Testament Law prescribed the death penalty for an extensive list of crimes including:

Murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17,21)
Attacking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17)
Disobedience to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
Failure to confine a dangerous animal, resulting in death (Exodus 21:28-29)
Witchcraft and sorcery (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:5, 1 Samuel 28:9)
Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5)
Sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:16)
Doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12,14,17,19-21)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)
Homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13)
Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:20)
Perjury in capital cases (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)
Refusing to obey a decision of a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:12)
False claim of a woman's virginity at time of marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other than her betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

from web site
https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_CapitalPunishment.htm

 

[Lamb]

I have read a few articles that state that the teaching hasn't really changed in the catechism. The death penalty should not be used for vengeance is what one article said it came down to. http://www.courant.com/community/ha...-death-penalty-breakdown-20180802-story.html#

 

[Josiah]

I wonder what the Catholic church makes of it that God ordered some people executed in the Old Testament. If the death penalty is so bad when was it okay for the Israelites to carry it out in the Old Testament at God's command?

The Old Testament Law prescribed the death penalty for an extensive list of crimes including:

Murder (Exodus 21:12-14; Leviticus 24:17,21)
Attacking or cursing a parent (Exodus 21:15,17)
Disobedience to parents (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16)
Failure to confine a dangerous animal, resulting in death (Exodus 21:28-29)
Witchcraft and sorcery (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:5, 1 Samuel 28:9)
Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:2-5)
Sex with an animal (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:16)
Doing work on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
Incest (Leviticus 18:6-18, 20:11-12,14,17,19-21)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22)
Homosexual acts (Leviticus 20:13)
Prostitution by a priest's daughter (Leviticus 21:9)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:14,16, 23)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 18:20)
Perjury in capital cases (Deuteronomy 19:16-19)
Refusing to obey a decision of a judge or priest (Deuteronomy 17:12)
False claim of a woman's virginity at time of marriage (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
Sex between a woman pledged to be married and a man other than her betrothed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)

from web site
https://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_CapitalPunishment.htm

Precisely my point.....

THAT plus "the wages of sin is DEATH." And the necessity of Jesus to DIE. And the reality that our wrong results in DEATH (even in the New Covenant).

Now, in the now-rejected FORMER Catholic morality, God wasn't sinful and immoral, just that today we have other options that punish and protect - without the necessity of the death penalty. But that's been repudiated and the NEW morality of that denomination is that the punishment of death is sinful and immoral. The Roman Catholic Church NOW teaches, “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person." Not "inadvisible" or now "in modern times" but "inadmissible."


I find this troubling.... not only because evidently the RC denomination gives itself the power to suddenly CHANGE morality, but it certainly seems to be condemning God.... undermining Good Friday.... even placing into question the reality that people die because of sin.



.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Well, a denomination can't really "change" morality (imo). It can give its official stance on a subject, such as here, but moral laws (or one's "moral compass" if you will) are formed and developed over time. Individuals (and, perhaps, churches) can, and do, change opinion on topics of grave matters like this. And I'm not sure that this particular church will not have more to say in the future, and change its doctrine accordingly.

 

[psalms 91]

Yup but God doesnt change and He is who we are to follow, not a denomination or what we think

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Well, what does that mean; "God doesn't change"? That is true, for sure, but we don't become without a moral compass, or without a road-map to guide us (whether the word, tradition, or both). Our understanding of these can, and do, change.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well, a denomination can't really "change" morality (imo). It can give its official stance on a subject, such as here, but moral laws (or one's "moral compass" if you will) are formed and developed over time. Individuals (and, perhaps, churches) can, and do, change opinion on topics of grave matters like this. And I'm not sure that this particular church will not have more to say in the future, and change its doctrine accordingly.

Some denominations supported slavery in the 19th century, some supported segregation in the 20th century, most changed their teaching as time moved on and moral sensibilities became more acute. The death penalty is a case in point. Once it was far too costly and hence unthinkable for a state to keep murderers in prison for life and nobody really had much of an idea about how to rehabilitate anybody but now that is not so. Changes in practical moral applications of biblical teaching is to be expected when changes in society and technology as well as human wisdom occur.

 

[Albion]

Well, what does that mean; "God doesn't change"? That is true, for sure, but we don't become without a moral compass, or without a road-map to guide us (whether the word, tradition, or both). Our understanding of these can, and do, change.

God does not change, but that does not mean that "the church that never changes " doesn't change its beliefs.

 

[Josiah]

Some denominations supported slavery in the 19th century, some supported segregation in the 20th century, most changed their teaching as time moved on and moral sensibilities became more acute. The death penalty is a case in point. Once it was far too costly and hence unthinkable for a state to keep murderers in prison for life and nobody really had much of an idea about how to rehabilitate anybody but now that is not so. Changes in practical moral applications of biblical teaching is to be expected when changes in society and technology as well as human wisdom occur.

The new morality of the RCC is that it is WRONG. Not that things have changed and it's no longer appropriate (that might have been the REJECTED, FORMER morality of the RCC but not the new one, according to you.).

 

[MoreCoffee]

The new morality of the RCC is that it is WRONG. Not that things have changed and it's no longer appropriate (that might have been the REJECTED, FORMER morality of the RCC but not the new one, according to you.).

Brother Josiah, it seems that you read the CCC with an eye to find fault. With that as an approach fault will always be found. The same approach reads holy scripture to find fault and always finds it, some practise it with what they call the apocrypha and some practise it with all scripture. The former are sometimes Christians the latter are usually atheists. But the approach is the same. Reading to find fault. It is no good brother Josiah to read that way. It will not give information and can rob one of wisdom.

 

[Josiah]

Brother Josiah, it seems that you read the CCC with an eye to find fault. With that as an approach fault will always be found. The same approach reads holy scripture to find fault and always finds it, some practise it with what they call the apocrypha and some practise it with all scripture. The former are sometimes Christians the latter are usually atheists. But the approach is the same. Reading to find fault. It is no good brother Josiah to read that way. It will not give information and can rob one of wisdom.

No. I just read the words you said are the NEW morality of the RCC. It says that capitol punishment is wrong.

You gave the OLD rejected morality (which I was able to confirm), which indicates that the death penalty is no longer the best approach (which I very much agree with) but NOT that it's morally wrong. I agree with the old, rejected morality and not with the new one - in part because it makes God sinful.

 

[Albion]

This particular change is just a reflection of the Marxist views of the current Pope, isn't it? If so, it will probably be changed back in the future along with a number of other teachings.

 

[MoreCoffee]

This particular change is just a reflection of the Marxist views of the current Pope, isn't it? If so, it will probably be changed back in the future along with a number of other teachings.

:smirk:

Good joke. You ought to send it in to Stephen Colbert for his monologue.

:cheer::disgonbegood::cheer:

 

[Albion]

Good joke. You ought to send it in to Stephen Colbert for his monologue.

Wouldn't it be encouraging if it were a joke instead of the sad truth that it is??

Or is it actually possible that you don't know much of the sordid history of this guy? Oh sure...you heard that he was a bishop (obviously), a Jesuit, a fan of Francis of Assisi, and was a "community organizer " *wink wink* but not much more than that??