www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Papl Infallibility and the Death Penalty

There was a discussion on one of the local talk radio stations over lunch on whether or not the pope changed the tradition re: the death penalty. I sent the hosts and e-mail that I have posted below, and received a positive response.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Any differing opinions?

Gordo
___________________

Ron and Mark,

I only caught the last 30 minutes or so of your show today, but I thought I would write in and offer some clarification on the two issues that came up, namely papal infallibility and the death penalty.

Regarding the Catholic doctrine on papal infallibility, the doctrine is essentially that when the pope issues a definitive teaching on a matter of faith and/or morals which is intended for the whole Church, he is protected by God from teaching anything erroneous; that is, anything that would contradict both Scripture and the accepted dogmatic Tradition of the Church. A few things about this dogma:

- It refers to very specific situations, not to his general statements or homilies (although this may be a matter for debate among theologians).

- This preservation from teaching error means only that his doctrine will not directly contradict the official dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, which would include the Scriptures.

- It does not mean that what he says will be the right thing to say at the right time and in the right way. It just won't be wrong!

- It does not mean that he is regarded as sinless, or free from personal errors in matters pertaining to prudential judgement. His stand on the war on Iraq, for instance, was not a matter of infallible doctrine, but rather reflected the Pope's own prudential judgment and application of doctrine to a specific situation. Catholics are free to reject his determination on this matter, but with the knowledge that he is the head of our Church as well as a very wise bishop and theologian.

Regarding the death penalty, the pope's teaching on the death penalty contained in the Catechism and the letter, "The Gospel of Life," does not contradict the teachings of Scripture or the dogmatic tradition of the Church. He is attempting in this letter to reconcile two important principles: the sacredness of all human life as created in the image and likeness of God and the legitimate power of the state to protect its citizenry and to exact punishment on those who violate the laws. Historically, these two principles (which are intimately linked) have existed in tension for centuries. The power of the state to punish and protect serves the greater principle, however, which is the sacredness of all life as created by God.

Pope John Paul II has said that the advancement in the development of the modern penal system has brought most societies to such point that the need to exercise the "power of the sword" by the state has become virtually unnecessary. He favors mercy for all, including criminals, in the hope that they will have time to repent, citing the witness of God's mercy for criminals in the Scriptures. He does not assert that the state does not have the authority to put people to death, only that, as a matter of principle and prudential application, the state has an obligation to withhold the "sword" when society can be protected through incarceration.

Hope that helps to clarify. I always enjoy your shows.

Regards, etc etc.

Gordo,

If JPII, or any Pope for that matter spoke ex cathedra condeming the death penaly, I would have to change my position in favor of it.

I go with the classic St. Thomas Aquinas position of the state having the right to execute evil doers (capital crimes).

JPII has good arguments for stopping the death penaty. I admit that his teaching is tugging on me.

I have a tough time not executing criminals commiting capital crimes against women and children.

My final argument, which you might find unusual, is: Would we be saved if the Romans hadn't imposed the death penalty on our Lord? I think that there may be redemptive value to capital punishment.

Paul

Paul,

to your last point, Sacred Scripture states that that Jesus came to this world in the fullness of time, or one could say at the perfect time.

Perhaps that is why the Son was sent during the ascendancy of the Roman Empire, it certainly was not coincidental. The Romans had a way with crucifixion, but they also had a communication system which allowed even the far reaches of the Empire to be informed. This had an impact upon the Church's ability to share the Gospel.

In one respect (among others), thankfully God sent His Son when He did. I'd much rather wear a cross as a symbol of faith, then, say, a hangman's noose.