![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/635\/2018\/08\/Schwarz_Nikon.jpg\")
<\/a>\u201cSuppose you were to see a man who had been justly condemned being led to execution through the marketplace. Suppose it were in your power to save him from the hands of the public executioner. Would you not do all you could to keep him from being dragged off?\u201d- St. John Chrysostom<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Everyone (okay, mostly Catholics online) is talking about the recent change to the Catechism. If you aren\u2019t aware of what\u2019s going on, Hannah Brockhaus at Catholic News Agency<\/em> has summarized things quite nicely:<\/p>\n The Vatican changed on Thursday the Catechism of the Catholic Church\u2019s teaching on the permissibility of the death penalty, which the Church has taught is legitimate in limited cases, stating the penalty is \u2018inadmissible,\u2019 and its elimination should be sought.<\/p>\n A new draft of paragraph 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Aug. 2, after Pope Francis approved it in May.<\/p>\n Quoting Pope Francis\u2019 words in a speech of Oct. 11, 2017, the new paragraph states, in part, that \u201cthe Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that \u2018the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,\u2019 and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Unsurprisingly, this has generated quite the stir, with some lauding the pope\u2019s actions, crying out that this is a long-over-due adjustment, and with others wavering on whether or not this makes the Holy Father a formal heretic\u2014a position nicely encapsulated (in clickbaity glory) by the (re-published) Steve Skojec headline, \u201cPope Francis Is Wrong about the Death Penalty. Here\u2019s Why.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n I can\u2019t say I fall into either camp here. I am no enemy of Pope Francis, nor am I a friend of the death penalty (I unequivocally oppose it). But this situation rubs me the wrong way, in part because it feels like everyone is missing the point (I hasten to add that this does not mean that I \u201cget\u201d the whole point). I look to Dorothy Day for inspiration in matters of violence. Her pacifism was unequivocal (so much so that she opposed US entrance into World War II). And yet she wrote this<\/a>:<\/p>\n Theologians have laid down conditions for a just war (Monsignor Barry O\u2019Toole is writing on these conditions in the last eight issues), and many modern writers, clerical and lay, hold that these conditions are impossible of fulfillment in these present times of bombardment of civilians, open cities, the use of poison gas, etc. Fr. Stratmann, in his book, The Church and War, speaks of how \u201cmany fervent Catholics are awaiting a moral definition about war, for a decisive word as to its immorality\u2026That the Church should forbid war belongs to those things of which our Lord says: \u2018I have many things to say unto you but you cannot hear them now\u2019.\u201d And how agonizingly true is it when we consider the millions in Europe and China defending with their lives and at untold suffering, believing it the only way their country, their families, their institution and their Faith.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is essentially my point. I fundamentally agree with Pope Francis\u2014the death penalty was always intended to be used in situations in which rehabilitation or effective incarceration were impossible. Given modern conditions, our problem is treating prisoners properly, not figuring out how to lock them away safely. Sentences in the US<\/a> are quite long by comparison with other countries. A good number<\/a> of people escape, but changes in technology make it harder than it\u2019s ever been before (this is, of course, not to say that people won\u2019t always find ways to get out). The death penalty barely exists<\/a> in most of the rest of the \u201cdeveloped world\u201d (heck, it barely exists<\/a> in the US, barring a few states). It makes good sense to avoid killing when it is unnecessary for the reasons the pope mentions in his recent adjustment\u2014hope for conversion and respect for human dignity (i.e. not taking lives that don\u2019t need to be taken). In this sense, the death penalty really is \u201cinadmissible\u201d in the modern world, in a way that wholly fits with the tradition of the Church. We may believe there can be just wars, but you\u2019d be hard pressed to find a modern conflict that meets the criteria.<\/p>\n That said, what about the future? The previous language used in the Catechism<\/em> was clear that the death penalty ought to be rare\u2014that a just execution is about as rare as a just war or a black rhinoceros. Now, we have a situation that might confuse the issue\u2014would it be permissible in a future world pockmarked by war (in which secure prisons are a thing of the past)? Would it be acceptable in a post-atomic Earth, in which the state of incarceration has changed entirely? These questions seem much easier to answer given the old wording.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n On the plus side, I think there is something good in the change\u2014it clarifies that the Church recognizes the valid development of doctrine, especially as regards changing material and historical circumstances (this does not, of course, mean that dogma can change; non-Trinitarianism will never be true). I cannot state clearly enough that I agree with the pope, even as I think that this decision is imprudent. He is not fundamentally changing the Church\u2019s position (as long as one reads his words with a modicum of charity). The problem is one of prudence and rhetorical effectiveness, not meaning. You might disagree and say that material conditions have not changed enough to warrant the condemnation of the death penalty, but you\u2019d be disagreeing with the Church. That, however, is a historical question of what is permissible now, not a sweeping statement on the death penalty\u2019s acceptability since time immemorial.<\/p>\n What happens on the Catholic internet does not worry the Pope of Rome, especially when this discussion in particular is largely based in American Catholicism (we are rich and big, but we aren\u2019t the end-all-be-all of the Faith). Unfortunately, his comments are clearly going to rock the boat; in fact, they already have. I have seen more \u201cliberal\u201d Catholics accuse conservatives of Cafeteria Catholicism. I have seen conservatives lose it; some are threatening Schism. This saddens me. I know that my liberal brothers and sisters have struggled with Magisterial teaching before (contraception being one notable example). I know that the desire to leave the question open makes little sense to them, but not all confused by this are out for the blood of prisoners; I beg them to extend a hand in charity, even as they explain this teaching. I admit that some Catholics seem to relish the death penalty too much for my taste; it upsets me. But if I lose hope, I will lose everything.<\/p>\n At the same time, I fear for the souls of those who would become schismatics. There is no hope down that road, and the downfall of souls brings me no pleasure, not while there is still time for their conversion. And is that not what Pope Francis is asking of us in this change\u2014hope for conversion?<\/p>\n