Pope Francis revises Catechism, teaches that death penalty is ‘inadmissible’

 Pope Francis speaks during his general audience in Paul VI hall at the Vatican Aug. 1. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)Pope Francis speaks during his general audience in Paul VI hall at the Vatican Aug. 1. (CNS photo/Paul Haring)

Pope Francis has significantly revised the teaching on the death penalty in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, declaring that “in the light of the Gospel” the death penalty “is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and stating that the church works “for its abolition worldwide.”

The Vatican announced this today when it released the new revised formulation of the Catechism teaching on the death penalty found at number 2267 of that text, in six different languages. It said this new formulation of the church’s teaching will replace the earlier one in the Catechism approved by St. John Paul II.

Advertisement

When the Catechism was initially published in 1992, much to the dismay of many in the church, it still admitted the use of the death penalty. But strong reaction from bishops and the faithful in many countries led him to revise the text in 1997, with the help of Cardinal Ratzinger. The revised text, however, still did not exclude the death penalty on moral grounds as Pope Francis did today. Instead, it said that given the possibilities the modern state has of rendering the criminal incapable of doing harm again, then “the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’”

Along with the revised text for the Catechism, the Vatican also released a letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to the Catholic bishops of the world which explains and emphasizes at some length that the newly formulated teaching is “an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium.” It states that “this development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the church for the respect due to every human life” and recalls that St. John Paul II declared that “not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”

In full, the new text in the Catechism reads as follows:

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.

In the accompanying letter to bishops, the prefect and secretary of the C.D.F., Cardinal Luis Ladaria and Archbishop Giacomo Morandi, said that Pope Francis “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” and emphasized that “this development centers principally on the clearer awareness of the church for the respect due to every human life.”

Significantly, the letter goes at some length to underline how this revision is a “development” of the teaching of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, and also reflects “the attitude towards the death penalty that is expressed ever more widely in the teaching of pastors and in the sensibility of the people of God.”

It says that while the political and social situation in the past may have made the death penalty acceptable, today, however, “the increasing understanding that the dignity of a person is not lost even after committing the most serious crimes, the deepened understanding of the significance of penal sanctions applied by the state, and the development of more efficacious detention systems that guarantee the due protection of citizens have given rise to a new awareness that recognizes the inadmissibility of the death penalty and, therefore, calling for its abolition.”

In addition to the 1997 revision to the Catechism pointing out that cases of necessity for the death penalty were “practically non-existent,” St. John Paul II also intervened on other occasions against the death penalty, the letter says, “appealing both to respect for the dignity of the person as well as to the means that today’s society possesses to defend itself from criminals.” And when he visited the United States in January 1999, he said, “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform” and called “for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”

In its letter, the C.D.F. pointed out that Benedict XVI, too, continued the push against the death penalty, when for instance, in November 2011, in his exhortation after the synod on Africa he called “the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty.”

No matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.

Pope Francis has repeatedly taken a stance against the death penalty, culminating in his call in on Oct. 11, 2017, for a revision of the formulation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the death penalty in a manner that affirms that “no matter how serious the crime that has been committed, the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”

The C.D.F. letter concludes saying this development of doctrine “grew ‘in the light of the Gospel,’” and that “the Gospel invites us to the mercy and patience of the Lord that gives to each person the time to convert oneself.”

Finally, the letter says that with this new formulation, the church “desires to give energy to a movement towards a decisive commitment to favor a mentality that recognizes the dignity of every human life and, in respectful dialogue with civil authorities, to encourage the creation of conditions that allow for the elimination of the death penalty where it is still in effect.”

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Mike Fitzpatrick
2 years ago

It is interesting to me that during the Prayr of the Faithful, at my parish, we pray for respect for life at all stages and for the abolition of the death penalty. There is no mention of the abolition of abortion.

Suelens mus
2 years ago

I am also against the death penalty, because at an opportunity in the Bible when a group of people did not accept Jesus, his disciples asked Master to allow fire to come down from the sky and kill them, but Jesus said that he did not come to destroy souls , but save them. https://maismusicas.mus.br/louvores-de-adoracao/

Samuel Nelson
2 years ago

If this development were based solely on the Church's insistence that a person maintains their dignity even after commission of a serious crime, and that human life must be protected regardless of circumstances, well ok then. Bravo. But relying on the development of "more effective systems of detention. . . which ensure the due protection of citizens" as a basis for this change makes no sense.

It is a breakdown in logic: (a) in many places in the world, "more effective systems of detention" have been developed and implemented; (b) where there are such "more effective systems", there is no justification for the death penalty; (c) therefore, the death penalty is immoral everywhere in the world, including those places which do not have more effective detention systems.

The logical leap from (b) to (c) is jarring, and makes no sense. The prior teaching was more coherent, and even took into account the very issue of better systems, stating that "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." (2267 prior to change). This correctly applies the current state of the world: in many places, "more effective systems" are in use which make the death penalty illicit; however, there are rare circumstances and places where such systems either do not exist or are not effective, and in such circumstances the Church cautiously allows the death penalty if it is "the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor."

If the new development were based solely on the assertion of the dignity of the person, that is well and good, and please apply it to every place and time. If, instead, the new teaching depends on the presence of more effective systems of detention, then how can it be applied to places where such systems do not exist? In fact, I think the old 2267 more clearly announced the very things that Pope Francis is attempting to bolster.

I am not against the new teaching - but the way it is written and the reasoning provided does not provide a helpful understanding, analysis, or explanation of the Church's stance on this matter.

James Haraldson
2 years ago

Once again "Francis the Merciful" proves to be merciless to the victims of evil. The only thing that matters is that no one be bothered by guilt feelings, except of course those rigid monsters who agree with God that there are moral absolutes. After all, "Francis the Merciful" doesn't allow for a God that knows better than theologians who have kept up with the times. God is still in the process of learning how to be God, and anyone who disagrees is so out of touch with the real God they are effectively an atheist, according to Francis. Thus, "Francis the Merciful," has spoken. Every knee must bow.

Danny Collins
2 years ago

It never ceases to amaze me how similar Trump and Francis are. What crisis of bishops ignoring their gay brethren who are abusing seminarians and turning those broken people out into the world to abuse altar boys? Look, it's a major revision of church teaching! I'm the infallible pope, so I can change 2000 years of Church teaching on any topic.

Just another outlandish move to distract from the real crisis and draw people away from his blatant failings, given that so many in his own close circle are compromised in this area.

Dr Robert Dyson
2 years ago

But Holy Scripture repeatedly and explicitly prescribes capital punishment, by burning or stoning ...

also imperialist warfare, genocide, animal sacrifice, and the sinfulness of eating shrimps .

It also requires women to obey their husbands, to cover their heads in church and to take no part in the liturgy ...

and it emphatically proscribes homosexual acts.

So:

Will someone please help me to understand why Christians are allowed to pick and choose which elements of Holy Scripture to regard as obligatory?

Cam Rathborne
1 year 11 months ago

"Not all moral issues have the same moral weight...For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment...he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. There may be legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about...applying the death penalty". - Cardinal Ratzinger 2004

Advertisement

The latest from america

75 years after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, writes Drew Christiansen, S.J., the danger of nuclear war is as high as ever. Our “deterrence” strategy needs to be reconsidered.
A nurse prepares a shot as a study of a possible Covid-19 vaccine, developed by the National Institutes of Health and Moderna Inc., on July 27 in Binghamton, N.Y. (AP Photo/Hans Pennink)
Imagine the potential for chaos once a Covd-19 vaccine becomes available, write Kevin Wildes, S.J., and Warren von Eschenbach. We need to decide now who should get the vaccine and when.
Kevin W. WildesAugust 04, 2020
Maximino Caballero Ledo
Maximino Caballero Ledo has extensive experience as a finance leader with Baxter International, a Fortune 500 American health care company.
Gerard O’ConnellAugust 04, 2020
Bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski of Springfield, Mass., addresses the congregation alongside Lutheran Bishop Donald Kreiss, chair of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's ecumenical and interreligious relations committee, during a March 2, 2017, prayer service in Chicago. (CNS photo/Karen Callaway, Chicago Catholic) 
Archbishop-elect Rozanski will arrive in St. Louis at a difficult time, as pandemic anxieties and protests against racism rock the city.
Sean Salai, S.J.August 03, 2020