Agreed - the Church has put forth the Catechism in an authoritative way, so someone who follows the Catechism won't go wrong. But it doesn't follow that the Catechism will always put things as well as they can be put, or even that there are no errors in it.

I do think the "jarringness" comes from a bad editing job in the final edition, as they basically snipped out what was there and stuck in some of EV. Not being part of the original text, it does not really "flow" the same way.

The whole section is very confusing. E.g., even though the death penalty and the killing of the enemy in war are clearly not examples of double effect, the second on "legitimate defense" opens with a very confusing statement

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

But killing an aggressor is not neccesarily the killing of the innocent, let alone murder. The next paragraph mentions self-defense, again under the idea of double effect, but then the following paragraphs deal with matters that are blatantly not issues of double effect, namely the use of force by the state


On a casual reading one would think that this is still operating under the double effect teaching of 2263, but that is bltantly false. The whole talk about punishment is situated under the heading "legitimate defense" and 2265 seemingly places it all under that, except as 2266 affirms, retributive justice is the primary aim of punishment. It then mentions the tertiary end of medicinal correction (including the expiation that coms from acceptance)

Over all, before even talking about the punishment of death, the section is very badly written

I'm specifically talking about Sec. 2266. It mentions expiation (which you've been shown before is the traditional teaching of the Church), then muddles it up with the duty of defense.

'Dispensation' in that the primary law ‘Thou shall not kill’ stands alone and inaccessible to human judgement. God then gave specific commands through the prophets about when governing authority should take life in the course of justice. God didn’t abrogate or derogate the primary law in doing this. These were dispensations which left the law wholly intact.

The correct translation is Thou Shalt Not Murder. Kill is, from everything I understand, not accurate.


SV

May I ask where you are getting this information?

It only mentions that there is an expiation value if the offender is personally repentant. It doesn't say that the legitimate authority has any power to extract such atonement value. That we assume is God alones power. By that I would assume that legitimate authority is only authorised to tend to the common good, public safety. Even the medicinal value is dependent on the free will of the offender in being open to correction.

God commanded the death penalty for quite a few offenses in the Mosaic law, including many offenses we would today never execute someone for, including adultery and homosexuality....and he also commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies on more than one occasion....so you attempt at an an absolutist interpretation is right out..not even remotely plausible...

It would be more accurate to translate the commandment as 'thou shall not murder', not all killing is murder any more than all sex is adultery...

I want to say... isn't this just how we understand and believe it to be through all that we've been taught? It's the pattern of our faith. It's less about trying to unravel the confusing/jarring 'contradictions' and more about understanding the nature of Gods authority and the nature of human authority that eases our distress.

That the lawful authority has recourse to the death penalty because of a dispensation? No.

I don't think you mean expiation. Don't you mean retribution? Expiation is a medicinal end.

But there is no "contradiction" to be solved here. The public authority intends to kill the wrongdoer. Assuming that the guilt has been established, and it is for a grave crime, this is an act in accordance with the 5th commandment, not a contradiction of it.

The authority of the state comes from God, it is "divine authority" We do not believe in the social contract idea, the sovereign is not merely the depository for the collective will of the people. Were states to derive their authority from those governed as their source, then the state could not execute anyone, nor for that matter us any coercive force whatsoever, nor issue any punishments. But the authority of the state, even if through the people, has its source in God. Hence the state, in acting for the common good, is acting with more authority then the mere collection of the "authorities" of its subject.

Under the new Covenant, there is no authority ‘to kill the wrongdoer’ though. If the guilt is established and the crime grave, a death sentence by the civil authority must reflect the need for societies safety primarily. If that condition is not the primary motivation, it would be an act in contradiction to the 5th commandment.

If you start your treatment of this question from the beginning of Ch. 2 Art. 5 of the CCC, it establishes from the get go that all lifeblood is sacred (innocent) in the eyes of God.



It stresses in 2260 “The Old Testament always considered blood a sacred sign of life.60 This teaching remains necessary for all time.”

Jesus gives the instruction to turn the other cheek and love your enemies. From the Cross, He implores His Father to ‘forgive them. They know not what they do.’ By His death we were all rendered 'innocent' in this context.

There is no authority given anywhere under the new Covenant that sanctions ‘killing a wrongdoer’. There is only legitimate defence that allows for the secondary end of a wrongdoers death, only if the primary motivation it to defend your life or the life of others.

We are not permitted to do an evil in order that a good might come from it. We cannot kill to defend our life, but we can defend our life although it may result in the shedding of “sacred lifeblood” (innocent). The end can’t justify the means.




Can we rightfully call it ‘divine authority’ or is it an authority with divine origin that cannot “command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.” ?

CCC…
[/quote]

Why do I bother. St. Paul clearly speaks about the state having the sword (the ability to execute) from God. That is straight from the new testament.

Further, you clearly have no idea what double effect is. In every instance of the punishment of death, the death of the wrongdoer is intended

You are also a sophist. Note, the CCC passage you quote clearly says "INNOCENT"

no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being


Again, in the death penalty death is not "beside the intention" rather unlike self-defense. If a man attacks me, and I hit him to save myself, and he dies from the blow, his death is not intended by me. Were he to have gone unconscious, or been subdued, my intent is just as fulfilled. But in the death penalty, the death of the not-innocent, but wrongdoer, is intended and were a person not to die, but, say, be rendered a parapelgic, that would be a failure.

Your assertion that we are all "innocent in this context" is blatantly wrong. That is absolute nonsense.

Look, you clearly have no studied knowledge of theology. It is fine to defer to the Catechism in what it actually says. No one has denied that. But when you make incredibly ridiculous assertions over and beyond that, and often advocate modernistic heresy in doing so (as if dogma or the sense of the doctrine change), you should not be suprised that people cease to be civil with you.

If this line meant by innocent, all and every, then the death penalty would never, ever be allowed. Nor would war be allowed. Under any circumstance whatsoever. Doesn't matter if it is a psycho about to kill every human being on earth, and rape every child, by your argument you can intend deadly force against him. Which is nonsense. Clearly, by innocent we mean just that. Otherwise, why does the Catechism, inter alia, mention the need to determine the guilt, the reatus, of the party before the punishment of death (poena mortis) may be administered? How stupid would it be to say that but mean, by some sort of secret gnostic meaning that no one can even be guilty?

The State has the right and grave duty to tend to justice through punishment of crime. It is not forbidden, that if the common good and public safety are at risk, for the State to resort to Capital punishment. Should those conditions not exist, the practice of Capital Punisment may be 'cruel and unnecessary'.

"May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world." (Prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coeli Prison in Rome, July 9, 2000).

"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. I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary." (Homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999).




From the New Catholic Encyclopedia...

Theologians commonly teach that four conditions must be verified in order that a person may legitimately perform such an act.
(1) The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
(2) The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
(3) The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
(4) The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things."

This teaching from the CCC is applying the principles of double effect in every detail...


"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."68"




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.




The dignity of the human being justifies his immunity from death (unless the public safety is at risk), as a sentence arising out of the right and grave duty of the State to punish those who commit crimes. Every person is marked with the blood of the Lamb therefore bloodless but just sentences are demanded and required and in every western country that abandoned capital punishment as 'cruel and unnecessary' in the age we live in, bloodless sentences continue to be regarded as the right and grave duty of the State.

From Para. 56 of Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life), an encyclical letter on various threats to human life which Pope John Paul II issued on March 25, 1995.

"This is the context in which to place the problem of the death penalty. On this matter there is a growing tendency, both in the Church and in civil society, to demand that it be applied in a very limited way or even that it be abolished completely. The problem must be viewed in the context of a system of penal justice ever more in line with human dignity and thus, in the end, with God's plan for man and society. The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is "to redress the disorder caused by the offence."(46) Public authority must redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime, as a condition for the offender to regain the exercise of his or her freedom. In this way authority also fulfills the purpose of defending public order and ensuring people's safety, while at the same time offering the offender an incentive and help to change his or her behaviour and be rehabilitated.(47)

These are the urgings and guidance of a saintly Pope of our time and another deeply learned in theological things new Pope of our times. They carry the same authority and validity as every other Pope and theologian who has made pronouncements on this topic through history.

You are quite simply wrong. Or you are confusing legitimate government with individual Christians (private citizens). What do you make of St. Paul’s imperative in Rom 13:1-7, after the establishment of the new Covenant?

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. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 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; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. (Emphasis added)

Yes there is. Others have already pointed out the relevant passages from St. Paul.


The death penalty is not evil, and those who are executed are not (as far as human justice can ascertain) "innocent."

My New Jerome Biblical Commentary says that the sword is introduced as the symbol of penal authority in this passage, It denotes the power legitimately possessed by civil authorities to coerce recalcitrant citizens to maintain order and strive for th common goal. The passage uses the word 'execute' not as in 'kill' the wrongdoer, but to 'carry out' the God's wrath on the wrongdoer. You'd have to make a huge leap to use this passage beyond the command to obey authority under pain of disciplinary force. And why would the Church deem CP 'cruel and unnecessary' at this time unless it was beholden to public health rather than to the civil authorities appeal to a divine right?

I put this question out there. If capital punishment has no magisterial authority because the conditions of the day don't justify it, is it not an opportunity to use the unfolding mysteries of this issue, to come to a better awareness of God's relationship with us? This conundrum is so in keeping with the pattern of our faith and Gods habit of urging us to make leaps by trusting in His Church.

No! Whether or not 'the conditions of the day justify capital punishment' is a question of prudential judgment only, and the Church does not have the authority to definitively bind the faithful on questions of prudential judgment.

One thing I have come to like about Pope Benedict XVI is that he always tries to make it very clear when he is trying to exercise of his office, and when he isn't....and whenever he gives a big speech about capital punishment, or the justness of a particular war, or any number of issues, he often precedes the statement by saying that what follows is just his own personal prudential judgment, that even though a Pope's opinion deserves a degree of deference due to his office he does not intend to bind Catholics in a definitive way to his opinion and so on...he is really very modest about making claims for himself, or for his own opinions.