Heresy in the Catechism. Wolf in the Vatican. No Shepherds in Sight. Steve Skojec August 2, 2018 0 Comments Just as the latest round of homosexual network and sex abuse allegations in the Church are reaching a fever pitch, Pope Francis — who has been eerily quiet of late — dropped a nuclear theological bomb into our midst. From Crux: According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the death penalty now is no longer admissible under any circumstances. The Vatican announced on Thursday Pope Francis approved changes to the compendium of Catholic teaching published under Pope John Paul II. “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person,” is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church now says on the death penalty, adding that the Church “works with determination for its abolition worldwide.” As I have previously attempted to demonstrate, this is simply theologically wrong. There’s no way around that. But I wanted the opinion of an expert — which I am not — so I reached out this morning to a trustworthy theologian who is well-versed in the finer distinctions of Magisterial authority and its limits. This was the response I received: The traditional teaching of the Catholic Church on the intrinsic morality of the death penalty is irreformable dogma. To deny this or assert the contrary is formally heretical. Catholics remain obliged to believe and accept this doctrine regardless of any changes to the Catechism. What does it mean to say that this is “formally heretical”? 1. Formal versus material heresy. This is a distinction pertaining to the objective status of doctrinal propositions. A heresy is any proposition opposed to any dogma. Two things are required for a doctrine to be dogma: (1) it must be contained in divine revelation and (2) it must be proposed as such by the Church (either by solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium). If both of these requirements are met, then the doctrine is a formal dogma, and the denial of such a dogma is a formal heresy. If a doctrine is contained in divine revelation but has not yet been proposed as such by the Church, then it can be called a “material dogma”. Such was the case with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in the patristic and medieval periods. Material heresy is the denial of a material dogma. 2. Formal versus material heretic. This is a distinction pertaining to the subjective culpability of persons. A heretic is a person who believes or teaches heresy. A material heretic is a person who believes or teaches something which is objectively a heresy; a formal heretic is one who continues to do so obstinately after having been duly corrected. So in the case of the dogma of the intrinsic morality of the death penalty, the denial of this dogma is formally heretical, since it contradicts a doctrine which is contained in divine revelation and which has been proposed as such by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. The person who denies this dogma is a material heretic simply in virtue of his denial; but he is not formally a heretic unless he persists in his denial after having been duly corrected. What is so absurd about this moment in the Church is that to simply reiterate Church teaching in the face of it being contradicted from the highest office is so dangerous for a theologian in full communion that I am compelled to protect this person’s identity. I don’t know what to add to the above. We are way off the map at this point in rough and uncharted waters. I began arguing that the Galatians 2 moment had arrived back when Francis had given the green light for eugenic contraception in 2016. Things have only gotten worse since. Bishops of the world, if you are orthodox and you care at all about the faith or the souls being lost due to the relentless barrage of scandal and error coming from Rome, you have a moral duty to correct this pope. Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Brandmüller, Cardinal Muller, Bishop Schneider – your names come first to mind, but there are others. Hiding out and making oblique references to what his happening and condemning errors without discussing their source is not sufficient in the eyes of the faithful. The scandal of this pope is only compounded by the absolute lack of confrontation on the part of our bishops who will not rebuke this disaster BY NAME, TO THE FACE, as St. Paul did to St. Peter in Galatians 2:11. Dom Prosper Gueranger wrote that “When the shepherd becomes a wolf, the first duty of the flock is to defend itself.” Are you really going to force us to do this alone?
Pope Francis is Wrong About the Death Penalty. Here’s Why. Steve Skojec August 2, 2018 324 Comments In light of today’s news that the pope has “changed the Catechism of the Catholic Church about the death penalty, saying it can never be sanctioned”, we are reprinting this as a reference point for concerned Catholics. – SS, 8/2/2018 When the first version of this column was originally published in March, 2015, it was occasioned by comments made by Pope Francis to the effect that the Death Penalty is never justified. Since then, it has become necessary to revise and update it, due to additional comments on the topic from the pope. Of particular note, these appeared in his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (83), which states: “the Church not only feels the urgency to assert the right to a natural death, without aggressive treatment and euthanasia”, but likewise “firmly rejects the death penalty”. This statement, which moved the pope’s position from the realm of personal opinion and into a document some perceive to be a part of his personal magisterium, was addressed by an eminent group of theologians as a potential heresy here [see A). 1).]. For illustrative purposes, here’s a screenshot the section in question: The citations in the above make clear that the established teaching of the Church on the matter come from both the Scriptures and the Magisterium. And yet, in an address given today, October 11, 2017, marking the 25th anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the pope has taken his position even further, saying the Catechism needs to be revised to reflect the understanding that capital punishment “is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel, because a decision is voluntarily made to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of whom, in the last analysis, only God can be the true judge and guarantor”. [emphasis added] The teaching of the Church on the permissibly of capital punishment, however, is taken from Divine Revelation; it is, in other words, infallible, and not subject to such changes – even by a pope. As the late Jesuit theologian Fr. John Hardon explained: In the 20th century, Pope Pius XII provided a full doctrinal defense of capital punishment. Speaking to Catholic jurists, he explained what the Church teaches about the authority of the State to punish crimes, even with the death penalty. The Church holds that there are two reasons for inflicting punishment, namely “medicinal” and “vindictive.” The medicinal purpose is to prevent the criminal from repeating his crime and to protect society from his criminal behavior. The vindictive is to expiate for the wrong-doing perpetrated by the criminal. Thus, reparation is made to an offended God, and the disorder caused by the crime is expiated. Equally important is the Pope’s insistence that capital punishment is morally defensible in every age and culture of Christianity. Why? Because the Church’s teaching on “the coercive power of legitimate human authority” is based on “the sources of revelation and traditional doctrine.” It is wrong, therefore, “to say that these sources only contain ideas which are conditioned by historical circumstances.” On the contrary, they have “a general and abiding validity” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 1955, pp. 81-2). Behind this declaration of the Vicar of Christ is a principle of our Catholic faith. Most of the Church’s teaching, especially in the moral order, is infallible doctrine because it belongs to what we call her ordinary universal magisterium. There are certain moral norms that have always and everywhere been held by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Although never formally defined, they are irreversibly binding on the followers of Christ until the end of the world. Such moral truths are the grave sinfulness of contraception and direct abortion. Such, too, is the imposition of the death penalty. Certainly Christianity, like Christ, is to be merciful. Certainly Christians are to be kind and forgiving. But Christ is God. He is indeed loving and in fact is love. But He is also just. As a just God, He has a right to authorize civil authority to inflict capital punishment.
What the Church Actually Teaches About Capital Punishment The Church’s stance on capital punishment has always been more than merely permissive; the idea, for example, that “rendering harmless” those criminals deserving of capital punishment is sufficient to eradicate the need for such a sentence is simply not consistent with the teachings of Holy Scripture, the understanding of popes, doctors of the Church, and various apostolic pronouncements. Whatever the present pope’s desire, therefore, to eradicate capital punishment, he can’t — because even a pope lacks the authority to make such a change. In order to advance his position, Pope Francis would have to declare several of his predecessors — as well as St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Thomas More (who prosecuted heretics in an England where that was a capital offense), a papal decree, an apostolic constitution, and also divinely-inspired Sacred Scriptures — to be in error. We’ll begin with the Scriptures, leaving aside the more numerous examples that could be drawn from the Old Testament and focusing instead on passages taken from the New Testament: “If then I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death.” (Acts 25:11) “Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil” (Romans 13:1-4). We must also examine papal and magisterial pronouncements: “It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.” (Pope Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495) Condemned as an error: “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” – Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (1520) “The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives. In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). (Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4) “Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.” (Pope Pius XII, Address to the First International Congress of Histopathology of the Nervous System, 14 September 1952, XIV, 328) And finally, some teachings from the doctors of the Church: “The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. The agent who executes the killing does not commit homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.” – (St. Augustine, The City of God, Book 1, chapter 21) It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. 100:8). …Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). – (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2) St. Thomas even proposes that accepting a death sentence has an expiatorynature:“Even death inflicted as a punishment for crimes takes away the whole punishment for those crimes in the next life, or at least part of that punishment, according to the quantities of guilt, resignation, and contrition; but a natural death does not.” (Summa Theologica, Index, under the word mors [Turin, 1926]; As cited by Romano Amerio in Iota Unum, p. 435) In his apostolic constitution, Horrendum illud scelus, Pope St. Pius V even went so far as to decree that actively homosexual clerics were to be stripped of their office and handed over to the civil authorities, who at that time held sodomy as a capital offense. He wrote: “We determine that clerics guilty of this execrable crime are to be quite gravely punished, so that whoever does not abhor the ruination of the soul, the avenging secular sword of civil laws will certainly deter.” For some of us, these teachings could be construed, to borrow words from the New Testament, as “hard sayings.” But as Catholics, we are obligated to wrestle with these teachings – especially the ones we don’t understand or find ourselves interiorly opposed to. The above citations alone should be sufficient to prove that the death penalty has always been viewed by the Church as more than simply morally permissible in certain circumstances. The traditional view was that, when carried out justly, the execution of criminals deserving of such penalties by the legitimate authority of the state positively served the common good and even had the power to expiate temporal punishment on the part of the guilty. Cardinal Ratzinger, before his election to the papacy, admitted that Catholics had room to disagree on this issue. He stated, as pertains to the question of capital punishment and the worthiness of an individual who supports it to receive Holy Communion: Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Prudential Considerations and Evangelium Vitae Some will argue that the the Church’s moral position on capital punishment has evolved. As an irreformable truth on a matter of faith and morals, this is, of course, categorically false. Still, it is not difficult to understand how the faithful might come under this impression from a reading of Pope John Paul II’s encyclical, Evangelium Vitae: Among the signs of hope we should also count the spread, at many levels of public opinion, of a new sensitivity ever more opposed to war as an instrument for the resolution of conflicts between peoples, and increasingly oriented to finding effective but “non-violent” means to counter the armed aggressor. In the same perspective there is evidence of a growing public opposition to the death penalty, even when such a penalty is seen as a kind of “legitimate defence” on the part of society. Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform. […] 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”. 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 fulfils 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. It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent. If one pays close attention to the language in the above citation, one does not see a reversal of the Church’s moral teaching on capital punishment, or an untenable accusation that it is “contrary to the Gospel,” but rather a questioning of its prudence in application. This is an important distinction. There are certainly contexts in which a state — particularly considering that most modern states are secular, and refuse recourse to the moral guidance of the Church — might make use of capital punishment unjustly. For an obvious example, one need only look to the Communist regimes still operating in the world today, where minor offenses — some not even criminal in nature — result in summary executions. Since the moral permissibility of the death penalty is not a teaching which can be overturned, such discussions of prudence in application leave room, as then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, for debate and disagreement. Setting aside the obvious injustices committed under ideological regimes that do not value human life, we are at liberty to ask whether some of the assumptions of Evangelium Vitae are realistic. For example, EV asserts that criminals are rendered “harmless” by “steady improvements in the…penal system”, and yet the epidemic of modern prison violence — assault, rape, and murder — cast serious doubt upon this premise. Comprehensive statistics on prison homicides in America are difficult to come by, since they are broken down by federal and state jurisdictions. Moving the focus to the dehumanizing crime of prison rape, however, we see a vastly different and more horrifying picture. The Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that somewhere between 86,000 and 200,000 cases of sexual assault happen in American prisons every year. This does not seem indicative of the “steady improvements in the organization of the penal system” that Pope John Paul II spoke about when declaring the need for executions “practically non-existent.” Another common argument against the death penalty follows from EV’s assertion that “Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform.” This argument typically takes the form of a statement along these lines: “If criminals are executed, what chance do they have to repent and convert? The longer we keep them alive, the more opportunities there are for God’s grace to reach them.” St. Thomas Aquinas, however, addressed this claim specifically. He wrote: “The fact that the evil ones, as long as they live, can be corrected from their errors does not prohibit that they may be justly executed, for the danger which threatens from their way of life is greater and more certain than the good which may be expected from their improvement. They also have at that critical point of death the opportunity to be converted to God through repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even at the point of death their heart does not draw back from malice, it is possible to make a quite probable judgment that they would never come away from evil.” – (Summa Contra Gentiles, Book III, chapter 146) These examples suffice to demonstrate that there are real prudential aspects to the application of the death penalty that should be evaluated by competent civil and ecclesiastical authorities. The Church certainly never demanded that the death penalty always be carried out in certain cases. The decision was relegated to legitimate civil authority. This, too, was affirmed by no less than our Divine Savior Himself, who said to Pontius Pilate — knowing full well he was about to be sentenced to an unjust death — “Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above.” (Jn. 19:11) Christ didn’t say that what Pilate was doing was just in that given circumstance. But he did affirm that the authority rested with him to do it. It is demonstrably false that capital punishment is morally impermissible or in any way contrary to the Gospel. This is confirmed by both the Scriptures and the perennial magisterium of the Church. Any pope who wishes to overturn this teaching quite simply lacks the authority to do so and must be opposed. Originally published on October 11, 2017.
From a CDF letter by +Josef Ratzinger to former Cardinal McCarrick on the legitimacy of Catholics disagreeing with the Holy Father (then, JPII) on capital punishment and on the legitimacy of a diversity of opinions on this matter: "3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia."
Another example of past magisterial teaching on capital punishment, from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, promulgated by Pope St. Pius V: "Execution Of Criminals Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord."
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment Catholicism & Capital Punishment by Avery Cardinal Dulles April 2001 Among the major nations of the Western world, the United States is singular in still having the death penalty. After a five-year moratorium, from 1972 to 1977, capital punishment was reinstated in the United States courts. Objections to the practice have come from many quarters, including the American Catholic bishops, who have rather consistently opposed the death penalty. The National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1980 published a predominantly negative statement on capital punishment, approved by a majority vote of those present though not by the required two-thirds majority of the entire conference. Pope John Paul II has at various times expressed his opposition to the practice, as have other Catholic leaders in Europe. Some Catholics, going beyond the bishops and the Pope, maintain that the death penalty, like abortion and euthanasia, is a violation of the right to life and an unauthorized usurpation by human beings of God’s sole lordship over life and death. Did not the Declaration of Independence, they ask, describe the right to life as “unalienable”? While sociological and legal questions inevitably impinge upon any such reflection, I am here addressing the subject as a theologian. At this level the question has to be answered primarily in terms of revelation, as it comes to us through Scripture and tradition, interpreted with the guidance of the ecclesiastical magisterium. In the Old Testament the Mosaic Law specifies no less than thirty-six capital offenses calling for execution by stoning, burning, decapitation, or strangulation. Included in the list are idolatry, magic, blasphemy, violation of the sabbath, murder, adultery, bestiality, pederasty, and incest. The death penalty was considered especially fitting as a punishment for murder since in his covenant with Noah God had laid down the principle, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image” (Genesis 9:6). In many cases God is portrayed as deservedly punishing culprits with death, as happened to Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Numbers 16). In other cases individuals such as Daniel and Mordecai are God’s agents in bringing a just death upon guilty persons. In the New Testament the right of the State to put criminals to death seems to be taken for granted. Jesus himself refrains from using violence. He rebukes his disciples for wishing to call down fire from heaven to punish the Samaritans for their lack of hospitality (Luke 9:55). Later he admonishes Peter to put his sword in the scabbard rather than resist arrest (Matthew 26:52). At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, “He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die” (Matthew 15:4; Mark 7:10, referring to Exodus 2l:17; cf. Leviticus 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate’s power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (John 19:11). Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Luke 23:41). The early Christians evidently had nothing against the death penalty. They approve of the divine punishment meted out to Ananias and Sapphira when they are rebuked by Peter for their fraudulent action (Acts 5:1-11). The Letter to the Hebrews makes an argument from the fact that “a man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses” (10:28). Paul repeatedly refers to the connection between sin and death. He writes to the Romans, with an apparent reference to the death penalty, that the magistrate who holds authority “does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute His wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4). No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty. Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners. To answer the objection that the first commandment forbids killing, St. Augustine writes in The City of God: The same divine law which forbids the killing of a human being allows certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual for a limited time. Since the agent of authority is but a sword in the hand, and is not responsible for the killing, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of the State’s authority to put criminals to death, according to law or the rule of rational justice. In the Middle Ages a number of canonists teach that ecclesiastical courts should refrain from the death penalty and that civil courts should impose it only for major crimes. But leading canonists and theologians assert the right of civil courts to pronounce the death penalty for very grave offenses such as murder and treason. Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus invoke the authority of Scripture and patristic tradition, and give arguments from reason. Giving magisterial authority to the death penalty, Pope Innocent III required disciples of Peter Waldo seeking reconciliation with the Church to accept the proposition: “The secular power can, without mortal sin, exercise judgment of blood, provided that it punishes with justice, not out of hatred, with prudence, not precipitation.” In the high Middle Ages and early modern times the Holy See authorized the Inquisition to turn over heretics to the secular arm for execution. In the Papal States the death penalty was imposed for a variety of offenses. The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment. In modern times Doctors of the Church such as Robert Bellarmine and Alphonsus Liguori held that certain criminals should be punished by death. Venerable authorities such as Francisco de Vitoria, Thomas More, and Francisco Suárez agreed. John Henry Newman, in a letter to a friend, maintained that the magistrate had the right to bear the sword, and that the Church should sanction its use, in the sense that Moses, Joshua, and Samuel used it against abominable crimes. Throughout the first half of the twentieth century the consensus of Catholic theologians in favor of capital punishment in extreme cases remained solid, as may be seen from approved textbooks and encyclopedia articles of the day. The Vatican City State from 1929 until 1969 had a penal code that included the death penalty for anyone who might attempt to assassinate the pope. Pope Pius XII, in an important allocution to medical experts, declared that it was reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life in expiation of their crimes. Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and tradition, we can glean some settled points of doctrine. It is agreed that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death. Yet, as we have seen, a rising chorus of voices in the Catholic community has raised objections to capital punishment. Some take the absolutist position that because the right to life is sacred and inviolable, the death penalty is always wrong. The respected Italian Franciscan Gino Concetti, writing in L’Osservatore Romano in 1977, made the following powerful statement: In light of the word of God, and thus of faith, life-all human life-is sacred and untouchable. No matter how heinous the crimes . . . [the criminal] does not lose his fundamental right to life, for it is primordial, inviolable, and inalienable, and thus comes under the power of no one whatsoever. read the rest at the link
https://www.catholicworldreport.com...he-infallibility-of-the-ordinary-magisterium/ Capital punishment and the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium A demonstration that it has been infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium of the Church that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. Not even a pope can reverse this teaching. January 20, 2018 Dr. Edward Feser Essay, Features 50 Print (us.fotolia.com/fotografiche.eu) When discussing Church teaching on the death penalty, two questions have to be carefully distinguished. First, is capital punishment legitimate at least in principle, or is it always and intrinsically wrong? Second, even if capital punishment is legitimate in principle, does Catholic teaching allow for it in practice today, and if so, under what conditions? In this article, I will be addressing only the first question. What I will show is that it has been infallibly taught by the ordinary magisterium of the Church that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong. Not even a pope can reverse this teaching. This is a proposition that Joseph Bessette and I defend at length in our book By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment. Among our key arguments is the argument from scripture. The Church holds that scripture is divinely inspired and therefore cannot teach error on matters of faith and morals. She also holds that the Fathers of the Church cannot be wrong when they agree about some matter of scriptural interpretation. But as we show in the book, scripture clearly teaches that capital punishment can be legitimate in principle, and the Fathers are agreed that scripture teaches this. It follows that the legitimacy in principle of capital punishment is a divinely inspired and thus irreformable teaching. Some critics of our book resist this conclusion. Catholic theologian E. Christian Brugger has long argued that the Church could condemn the death penalty as wrong always and in principle, and defends this position in a response to our book. Catholic theologian Robert Fastiggi also claims that “there is no definitive, infallible teaching of the Church in favor of the legitimacy of capital punishment” and that a condemnation of the practice as “intrinsically evil… is theoretically possible.” Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart argues that, whether or not the death penalty is in principle permitted by natural law, the higher demands of the Gospel nevertheless rule it out absolutely. The focus of these critics has been on attempts to reinterpret various passages from scripture or statements from the Fathers, and to minimize the significance of individual papal and other magisterial statements of the past. In earlier articles responding to Brugger, Fastiggi, and Hart, I have shown that these attempts fail. But there is also a forest the critics miss when they fixate on these individual trees. That forest is the ordinary magisterium of the Church – the everyday teaching of popes, bishops, and ecclesiastically approved theologians as they convey the Faith in encyclicals, sermons, books, and the like. Yes, unambiguous scriptural passages and ex cathedra papal declarations are among the places to look for irreformable Church teaching. But they are by no means the only places. The Church holds that the ordinary magisterium can also teach infallibly under certain circumstances. What I will show in what follows is that the ordinary magisterium of the Church clearly teaches not only that the death penalty is legitimate in principle under natural law, but also that even the Gospel does not rule it out absolutely. And again, I will show that the ordinary magisterium has taught these things infallibly. (Of course, a non-Catholic theologian like Hart will not be moved by an appeal to the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church. But Catholic theologians like Brugger and Fastiggi cannot dismiss such an appeal.) When does the ordinary magisterium teach infallibly? The 1990 document Donum Veritatis, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, allows that there are cases when the ordinary magisterium does not teach infallibly. However, in section 24 it also points out: But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission. (Emphasis added) A “prudential judgment” involves the application of a general principle of faith or morals to a concrete situation. What the document is saying is that though the magisterium can err in an individual prudential judgment, the “divine assistance” that it enjoys precludes its being “habitually mistaken” in its prudential judgments. Now, if the divine assistance enjoyed by the Church precludes habitual error even in prudential applications of general principles of faith and morals, then a fortiori it precludes any habitual error in the teaching of general principles of faith and morals themselves. Hence the clear implication of Donum Veritatis is that if the Church has been teaching something for two thousand years, then that teaching cannot be mistaken. For such an error would be of the “habitual” kind ruled out by the divine assistance enjoyed by the Church. In 1998, the CDF under Cardinal Ratzinger issued a doctrinal commentary on the profession of faith required of those assuming an office in the Church. Sections 5 and 6 of the commentary make it clear that there are “teachings belonging to the dogmatic or moral area” which, even though they have “not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed,” nevertheless “can be taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church.” The commentary draws the conclusion that: Every believer, therefore, is required to give firm and definitive assent to these truths, based on faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium, and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church. (Emphasis in original) Note that the commentary is not speaking here of doctrines which have been explicitly and solemnly defined as divinely revealed, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. Obviously, firm and definitive assent is due doctrines of that sort, but what the commentary is saying is that such assent is also due many teachings which have not been defined in this way. In section 9, the commentary adds: [W]hen there has not been a judgment on a doctrine in the solemn form of a definition, but this doctrine, belonging to the inheritance of the depositum fidei, is taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, which necessarily includes the Pope, such a doctrine is to be understood as having been set forth infallibly. read the rest at the link
Needless to say, this is an issue I’ve followed very closely for years now. I wrote this 15 years ago: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1042916/posts Is the Death Penalty Morally Equal to Abortion? Bishops Preach Politics Rather than Gospel Truth 12/16/2003 By Dr. Brian Kopp CCI NEWS SERVICE During the recent U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ fall general meeting, the bishops created a task force to examine the Church's relationship with Catholic politicians who openly defy Church teachings on various moral issues. Bishop John H. Ricard, SSJ, of Pensacola-Tallahassee is chairman of the new task force. During the meeting, he stated: "We face a serious pastoral challenge, Some Catholic politicians defy church teaching in their policy advocacy and legislative votes, first and most fundamentally on the defense of unborn life, but also on the use of the death penalty, questions of war and peace, the role of marriage and family, the rights of parents to choose the best education for their children, the priority for the poor, and welcome for immigrants...." The task force is charged with creating guidelines to aid our bishops in making distinctions between "respect for the office and approval of the officeholder ... to distinguish between fundamental moral principles and prudential judgments on the application of those principles, between essential substance and tactics," according to Bishop Ricard. This rhetoric creates a false moral equivalence between support for the death penalty (which has been seen as morally licit in well defined circumstances for the entire history of Christianity) and support for abortion (which has always been taught to be inherently evil, with no exceptions.) This misrepresentation of fundamental Catholic beliefs has grown increasingly common to the frustration of faithful Catholics who identify the political agendas behind the confusion. Another example of this intentionally misleading approach is by Michael L. Shields, writing in the August 1, 2003, National Catholic Reporter article, "Double standard in public life hurts Catholic credibility," states: "In March 1995, Pope John Paul II issued his encyclical Evangelium Vitae stating that the death penalty is nly appropriate "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are rare, if not practically nonexistent." … In spite of this declaration by the church, so-called "true" Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was able to reconcile his views on the permissibility of the death penalty with church teachings. Scalia argued that since the pope’s teaching on the death penalty in Evangelium Vitae did not come ex cathedra (i.e., with formal infallibility) he is not obligated as a Catholic to accept it, only to give it "serious consideration." Using Scalia’s logic, it is just as easy for a pro-choice Catholic to justify his belief in the right of a woman to choose because Humanae Vitae also did not come ex cathedra. However, the pro-choice Catholic would be considered more reprehensible than Scalia simply because well-entrenched conservative … consider abortion to be the greater of the two evils and thus they turn a blind eye to Scalia’s inconsistent views."
Con’t Tim Francis-Wright, writing for the self-declared Marxist/Leftist web magazine "Bear Left," states in his May 6, 2003 column, "Acta Santorum," "Santorum has criticized Catholic politicians who espouse liberal views on social issues, while praising President Bush as "the first Catholic president of the United States." Bush is a Methodist, unlike former President John Kennedy … He is, however, an unwavering conservative, and that is good enough for Santorum. "Santorum is free, as he should be, to use his religious beliefs to guide his political beliefs. His problem is that the complete tenets of Roman Catholicism are awfully hard to reconcile without some cognitive dissonance. If Santorum took a hard line against abortion and euthanasia and homosexual acts, but also against the death penalty and nuclear weapons and wars of retribution, as do "seamless garment" Catholics, then his views on sexuality and homosexuality would reflect the odd amalgam of radical and puritanical within the teachings of his church. "But Santorum is hardly a critic of the death penalty or of any war. Like many Catholics-and many non-Catholics-he has chosen from his religion's dogma what he wants to hear and ignored the rest. He may not want to admit that he, too, is a cafeteria Catholic, but his public pronouncements belie him. Ultimately, Rick Santorum is no better a Catholic than myriad Catholics who attend only Christmas and Easter services." For left wing hypocrites to twist the truth for their own ends is one thing, but for a Catholic bishop to compare defying the Church's stance on abortion, which is intrinsically evil, to a prudential judgement on the death penalty, which the Church still admits the State has a right to impose (though it should be rare) simply provides the desired fodder for the enemies of political conservatism and the Christian morality. ABORTION IS EVIL Abortion is by its very nature, i.e., intrinsically, evil. No circumstances, no application of "situational ethics," can change its intrinsically evil nature. On the other hand, the Catechism of the Catholic Church does not exclude the possibility that a state could justifiably use capital punishment in cases "of extreme gravity," but adds: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means..." [#2266, 2267] In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II wrote that punishment should not include the death penalty "if it is not a case of absolute necessity, in which the defense of society would not otherwise be possible." The Pope continued, "such cases are now very rare, if not practically non-existent." However, the Holy Father added that the principles put forth in the Catechism remain valid. So a case can be made that from the perspective of charity, and within the framework of justice in modern society, that Capital Punishment should be so rare as to be non-existent. This is the thinking of the current Pope, the Catechism now reflects that thinking, and many pro-life activists are indeed personally opposed to Capital Punishment. But recourse to the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. A Catholic who supports the death penalty commits no sin. To compare the two is disingenuous at best, and a direct attack upon conservative pro-life Catholic politicians and activists at worst. It would seem that certain factions within the USCCB are upset that lay Catholic activists and faithful Catholic politicians have forced them into addressing an issue they would much rather continue to ignore. (Furthermore, Catholics in the pro-life movement tend to share a 95% crossover identity with "orthodox" or conservative Catholics. Certain bishops may see these orthodox lay Catholics as a real threat to their overall liberal agenda. This Jesuit bishop’s comment may also have been intended as a shot across the bow, i.e "push us on this too hard and we might excommunicate your political heroes --like Santorum and Scalia-- also.") Pope John Paul II coined the terms "Culture of Life" and "Culture of Death." The four components that are traditionally named as the four pillars of the Culture of Death are 1)the contraceptive mentality (from which springs legalized abortion and the current destruction of marriage and the family), 2)abortion, 3)homosexuality and 4)euthanasia. Christian moral theology has condemned these four pillars of the Culture of Death, constantly and definitively, since the times of the apostles themselves. For instanc e, all of Christianity unanimously taught contraception to be inherently evil (i.e., no circumstances can make it acceptable) until 1930, when the Anglicans caved to pressure from the Margaret Sangers of the early 1900’s and permitted contraception, but only in carefully defined circumstances. The ensuing decades saw all mainstream Protestant sects fall into grave error on these issues until the present time, when only Roman Catholicism remains steadfast in its adherence to the continual teaching of Christianity against contraception. Likewise, Christianity has always condemned abortion, homosexuality, and Euthanasia as inherently evil, with some denominations falling recently to the pressures of the modern world to change. JUSTICE IS NOT EVIL Unlike these four pillars of the Culture of Death, Capital Punishment has continuously been regarded as morally licit, for the vast majority of the history of Christianity, with some modern changes in thinking. St. Thomas Aquinas sums up the thought of Christian tradition on the subject, "If a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since 'a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump' (I Cor. 5:6)" "The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men.... Therefore, the ruler of a state executes pestiferous men justly and sinlessly in order that the peace of the state may not be disrupted.... [However], the execution of the wicked is forbidden wherever it cannot be done with out danger to the good. Of course, this often happens when the wicked are not clearly distinguished from the good by their sins, or when the danger of the evil involving many good men in this ruin is feared" (Book III, ch. 146). Clearly, the continual teaching of Christianity has been that Capital Punishment is not only necessary but also just and licit. The recent changes in Church teaching regarding Capital Punishment are finely nuanced and situational. The constant teachings regarding contraception, abortion, homosexuality and euthanasia simply cannot and will never be changed. Is Opposition to Capital Punishment an essential Part of the Culture of Life? Is it a seamless garment, whereby if one opposes the 40 million abortions of innocent babies over the last several decades, one most equally oppose the death by capital punishment of several hundred murderers during that same time? NO! More importantly, does not the current practice of equating opposition to Capital Punishment with opposition to abortion itself cheapen and trivialize the grave crime of abortion? In a world that is post-Christian, where even practicing Christians fail to have the reasoning and critical thinking to separate that which is inherently evil from that which is only made evil by current circumstances, the danger lies in more Christians failing to comprehend the crucial distinction between that which by its very nature is inherently evil (abortion) and that which is morally licit in general (death penalty) but currently should be rare due to circumstances. Keeping Capital Punishment alongside these other issues leads many to conclude that like Capital Punishment, these other Culture of Death issues also can be made situationally acceptable due to our changing societal circumstances. Persisting to lump these disparate issues together threatens to destroy any efforts to teach the inherently evil and unchangeable nature of true Culture of Death issues. Situational ethics have won the day in too many battles in the Culture Wars already. We cannot afford to lose the overall war between the Culture of Life and the Culture of Death because some cannot or purposely will not "distinguish between fundamental moral principles and prudential judgments on the application of those principles, between essential substance and tactics." Lumping opposition to capital punishment alongside the true Culture of Death issues of contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and euthanasia is scandelous and wrong. It also demonstrates an example of how the demise of Catholicism in America is due, at least in part, to Bishops more concerned with preaching politics than the Gospel truth.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...sm-contradicts-natural-law-and-the-deposit-of Pope’s change to Catechism contradicts natural law and the deposit of Faith Peter Kwasniewski Follow Dr. Peter August 2, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – In the boldest and most reckless move to date in a pontificate that was already out of control and sowing confusion on a massive scale, the Vatican has announced Pope Francis’s substitution, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, of a new doctrine on capital punishment. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium of the Church for 2,000 years have upheld the intrinsic legitimacy of the death penalty for grave crimes against the common good of Church or State. There had never been any doubt in the minds of anyone on this subject. It was not a point of contention in the Schism between East and West, or in the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, or in the period of the Enlightenment—in short, it was one of those rare subjects on which agreement could be found not only within the Church, but with nearly everyone. The reason is simple: according to the natural law and Scripture alike, the rulers of a State, acting as representatives of divine justice and as custodians of the common good, may exercise an authority over life and death that they do not possess as private persons. In other words, it is God, always God, who has the right of life and death, and if the State shares in His divine authority, it has, at least in principle, the authority to end the life of a criminal. That the State does share in divine authority is the constant dogmatic teaching of the Church, found most explicitly (and repeatedly) in the Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII. RELATED: Pope Francis changes Catechism to declare death penalty ‘inadmissible’ Lest there be any doubts on this matter, Edward Feser and Joseph Bessette published a comprehensive overview of the subject: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017). In this hard-hitting book, Feser and Bessette present the natural law arguments in favor of capital punishment, furnish a veritable catalogue of citations from Scripture, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and Popes that uphold its legitimacy, and mount a critique of the logical fallacies and doctrinal contradictions—be they those of American bishops, or even of the Bishop of Rome—who attempt to wiggle out of this unanimous witness of faith and reason. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, like Feser and Bessette’s book, frequently quotes authoritative witnesses to Catholic doctrine from a period of 2,000 years (and more, if we add Old Testament references). It is hardly surprising, on the other hand, that the new Catechism text imposed by Francis cites but one source: a speech that Francis himself gave to participants in a meeting of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization on 11 October 2017. Francis, creating doctrine ex nihilo, has only himself to cite. Some may say that Francis is not being revolutionary here, since Pope John Paul II was also opposed to capital punishment. But there is a crucial difference. John Paul II never questioned the admissibility of the death penalty as such; indeed, he could not have done so, because there is no way to reject this penalty without repudiating the foundations of Catholic Social Teaching. Instead, John Paul II recommended favoring the approach of detention, clemency, and rehabilitation. About such prudential issues, Christians and Catholics can indeed disagree with one another, presenting various arguments pro and con. The matter at hand could not be more grave. If Pope Francis is right, only one conclusion follows: “the Church was wrong in a major issue literally of life and death,” as a blogger wrote this morning: If such a certain doctrine of the Church (of the possibility of the death penalty at least in some situations), affirmed by Christ Himself in Scripture—when, confronted by Pilate who affirmed his right to inflict capital punishment, told him, “You would have no authority over Me if it were not given to you from above,” affirming that it is a power granted to the State in its authority, even if, as all governmental powers, it can be exercised illegitimately and unjustly—can be changed, then anything can be changed. A “development” of doctrine may bring about anything: from the end of the “intrinsic[ally] disordered” nature of homosexuality to the priestly ordination of women, from the possibility of contraception in “some” cases to the acceptance of the Lutheran understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist as a possible interpretation of what the Church has always believed—and so on. With this move, Pope Francis has shown himself to be openly heretical on a point of major importance, teaching a pure and simple novelty—“the boldness of a personal opinion becoming a completely new and unprecedented ‘teaching’ of the Church,” as Rorate Caeli stated. “The current Pope has far exceeded his authority: his authority is to guard and protect the doctrine that was received from Christ and the Apostles, not to alter it according to his personal views.” Francis may be banking on an assumption—false at least for the United States—that most Catholics are already (more or less) opposed to the death penalty, and therefore, that it is an obvious place to commence the official program of “renovating” the Church’s morality, while not ruffling too many feathers. He sees that if this change to the Catechism is accepted, it will be relatively easy to proceed to the other issues mentioned above: a change in the Catechism on homosexuality, a change on contraception, a change on conditions for admission to Holy Communion, a change on women’s ordination, and so forth. Whether Francis is a formal heretic—that is, fully aware that what he is teaching on capital punishment is contrary to Catholic doctrine, and proves pertinacious in maintaining his position in spite of rebuke—is a matter to be adjudicated by the College of Cardinals. No doubt exists, however, that orthodox bishops of the Catholic Church must oppose this doctrinal error and refuse to use the altered edition of the Catechism or any catechetical materials based on it. May St. Alphonsus Liguori, patron saint of moral theologians, whose feast is celebrated on August 1st and August 2nd, intercede for the Pope and for the entire Catholic Church, that the Lord in His mercy may quickly end this period of doctrinal chaos.
Well I am no Theologian but it sure looks like formal heresy to me. But I am confused; how does this fit with the Teaching on Papal Infallibility?
I'd be surprised if a few Caridnals don't start shouting at this. At least I hope so. I do hope. Sigh I feel so helpless at the moment watching all this going on.
Well it cartainly is a time of deep testing. It reminds me of the words of the Our Father, '..Lead us not into temptation'. Let us wait and see what Cardinals Burke, Muller, Sarah et al say....may God guide these good people...and dare I say it the Papal Posse on EWTN ; I trust them too. I admit to feeling amazed and confounded and totally, totally out of my depth here.
This is difficult. The charism prevents the legitimate authority, namely the vicar of Christ, from teaching error on matter of faith and morals. This novelty of Francis has absolutely no grounds and is clearly erroneous. Mark this day my friends it will prove quite significant in the months ahead.
Definitely. That's why I'm trying to put lots of resources together here so good folks are not deceived by the spin that's going to be hatched to cover this heresy. Another thing to think about: By making this change in the catechism public today, they've effectively knocked McCarrick off the front page and off the minds of Catholic critics.
I'd be very surprised if any Cardinals other than, perhaps, the two remaining Dubia Cardinals so much as whisper about it. If they couldn't be bothered challenging him for enabling practices in contradiction of the Council of Trent and the very words of Jesus, they won't consider the death penalty a hill to die on (pardon the pun). Most likely they will say that the Pope is merely outlining discipline for our time and is not passing judgement on the past or proclaiming the teaching to be applicable should there be a change in prevailing circumstances. Also, at this stage he has appointed half if not a majority of Bishops in the world, mostly like minded men. I'm becoming ever more convinced that some time in the future (most likely when we're all pushing up daisies) he and his henchmen will be subjected to the same condemnations as Honorius 1. Don't buy any statues of him after he kicks the bucket.
