This morning found me in a conversation between highly educated friends (among whom are former theologians of the CDF) about a LifeSite story saying that Cardinal Müller, the former Prefect of the CDF, “defended Pope Francis’ ability to change the teaching on the death penalty since it was ‘not a matter of divine revelation.’”.
This headline will cause consternation because a Pope cannot change the Church’s teaching on the death penalty in such a way that the Church now says that the death penalty is “intrinsically evil”. After all, God commanded the death penalty and God cannot command what is intrinsically evil. Hence, all application of the death penalty must be bound up with prudential judgment. The parameters of prudential judgment can shift over time.
Part of the problem surrounding this issue is that what Francis said about it and imposed on the Catechism of the Catholic Church is as clear as mud. If we scrape away enough mud what we wind up with is not that Francis CHANGED the Church’s teaching about the capital punishment but rather that he “tweaked” John Paul II’s admonition about it in Evangelium vitae.
Francis didn’t change the Church’s teaching on the death penalty even if he thinks he did.
Müller treats it as a prudential judgment, even if he doesn’t say so.
The LifeSite headline, in all its clicky glory:
Cdl. Müller says Pope Francis has the ability to change Church teaching on the death penalty
Müller, however, had a different objective in his comments to Lifesite. The real objective was not to talk about a change to doctrine on capital punishment.
The real objective was to say that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality cannot be changed.
From LifeSite. Look what happens here… my emphases:
His comments came in response to a question from Giansoldati about whether the teaching on homosexuality in the Catechism could be changed, along with the issue of same-sex “blessings.” Pursuing this line of questioning, Giansoldati asked how “if from a theological point of view there is no space to change the Catechism in the part about homosexuality, giving the possibility to two Catholic men or women who love each other to live their sexuality without moral condemnation from the Church, what can be done?”
To this Müller replied that “[t]here are things that can be revised, but on this point the profession of faith cannot be changed.”
Continuing, though, he appeared to explain how Catholic teaching on homosexuality could not change, whilst also defending Francis’ position – contrary to Catholic Tradition – attacking the death penalty. Müller stated that:
The Catechism is no longer taught in the version drafted by the Council of Trent, the method of study has changed while its structure has remained intact, the Ten Commandments are intact. The Pope, for example, intervened on the death penalty stating that in the past it was accepted in determined circumstances, while now there is a belief that there are too many innocent people condemned in the world in dictatorial states.
The change was possible because it was not a matter of divine revelation. If it is a matter of social doctrine, theology can also study a different path, adapted to the changing general situation and in the higher purpose of adapting moral principles.
Müller thus posited the teaching on homosexuality in contrast to the teaching on the death penalty, in that he defended the unchanging nature of the Catholic teaching on homosexuality but allowed for a change in the death penalty teaching.
He added that the Catechism’s teaching on homosexuality could not change, since the text was not something which was updated with the changing times: “So it is clear that we cannot change the Catechism on the homosexual issue since it directly concerns the doctrine revealed…The Catechism therefore expresses revealed doctrine and cannot be subjected to the winds of fashion.”
So, confusing reporting about confusing topics. The headline lead one way, but the body of the piece lead another.
Bottom line: Jesuits far and wide are again gnashing their teeth today.
By the way, the “last word” on the death penalty issue was penned by Ed Feser.
Feser is also a contributor to the NEW and IMPORTANT BOOK:
PRE-ORDER for 27 March ’23 – US HERE – UK HERE (that’s the page, but it isn’t yet available)
Feser’s contribution deals with the Church’s Magisterium. He presents a strong challenge to what is coming out of Rome these days.
Loading ...
“After all, God commanded the death penalty…”
Really! ?????
[Yes. Really. Do you have a copy of the Bible?]
For me this all boils down to ONE simple rule:
1. Is GOD perfect? Yes.
2. Did GOD use the death penatly? Yes.
3. Did GOB submit himself to an unjust death peantly? Yes.
4. Based on 1-3 is the death penalty immoral? NO.
How can God commit an evil act? The answer is he can not. He can ALLOW an evil act to be committed by others due to free will, but he does NOT commit them himself.
Therefore the current teaching in the catechism is FALSE. The death penalty is neither wrong nor immoral. The decision in when to use or impose the death penalty is the only item up for debate.
It is not possible to argue that the death penalty is ALWAYS immoral. It may be rare, but not all cases are immoral. I would argue that any country that can confine a prisoner to the point they are no longer a threat to others can not justify the use of the death penalty.
The same argument can NOT be made in ALL situations. What do you do on the battlefield when there is no possible way to restrain a prisoner who has committed grievous acts of violence against others? This is happening now in Ukraine. How do you punish/stop a solider who has committed acts against innocents when you don’t have a prison or way of stopping them?
This whole wishy washy approach to the catechism and revealed Truth is why people leave the Church. Even prelates have to contort themselves in odd ways to justify and law that doesn’t make any logical sense.
“…in all its clicky glory.” Can I steal…ahem…use this? It’s perfect.
Today we have the gobsmacking spectacle of Jesuits on Twitter calling on the bishops to use Canon 915 on Governor Ron DeSantis for authorizing an execution in Florida.
These same Jesuits providing cover for ‘catholic’ politicians who are fanatical supporters of killing innocent preborn babies at any stage.
Good for Mueller. There is something i’d like to add, but my guardian angel has cautioned me.
The position that Francis was issuing a prudential judgment when he changed the Catechism is probably the most charitable way of interpreting what he said. That way we can avoid suggesting that he was defying 2000 years of Catholic tradition. But it’s hard to actually parse through the phrasing of p. 2267 to get that sense out of it.
The book “By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed” by Edward Feser and Joe Bessette is indeed an excellent look at the issue, an excellent defense of the Catholic teaching as it has developed over the 2 millennia since Christ ascended. It can, however, be supplemented by additional arguments they didn’t put in. For example, Christian Washburn’s article The New Natural Lawyers, Contraception, Capital Punishment, and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium does a bang-up job of showing how strong the evidence from Tradition is in favor of the licitness of capital punishment.
It was probably a lapse of good judgment for Pope John Paul to put his own prudential judgment about capital punishment into a Catechism to begin with: in principle, the whole point of a Catechism is to focus attention on what is solid and settled teaching, not to explore the edges where things haven’t been hashed out yet. It was followed up by bishops and theologians around the world mis-applying his opinion by claiming that the Catechism taught that capital punishment is wrong always and everywhere – even though cardinals like Ratzinger and Dulles were eminently clear that a person could be a good Catholic while disagreeing with Pope JPII on the death penalty, because it was not proposed as a binding doctrine, but as a prudential judgment.
For many years the Tombs Prison in NY is where the Death Row Inmates were kept until hanging. They had two Jesuit Priest who were assigned there. They made many converts and also helped fallen away Catholics to make good confessions and prepare for death. Hangings were carried out on the island were the Statue of Liberty now stands. People would come out in their boats to witness the hangings and many of the criminals publicly confessed their crimes and how they were guilty. They asked for God’s grace and went to their deaths without fear.
The arguments against the death penalty includes the assertion “of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system.” The competency of the penal system to control criminals is under full assault by left-wing DAs and other soft on crime governmental officials. It is getting to be a revolving door. Remember the 2020 “Summer of Love” riots, with calls for defunding the police, and people being prosecuted for engaging in self-defense? One could make the argument that in some places the judicial and penal systems are undergoing a process of decay. Common everyday citizens are being stripped of the protections of the law. Many of the large cities have been turned into shooting galleries by neighborhood gangs where the people are treated like clay pigeons.
I still think it’s word salad and I am not impressed.