Questo articolo è disponibile anche in: Italian English

Questions

Dear Father Angelo,

although in your column you have already tackled the issue of death penalty, I would like to submit some questions and observation of mine for your attention, considering that I often happen to participate in discussions and dialogues about Pope Francis’s recent change to the Church’s teaching on this matter;

1. Previously, was the Church mistaken?

An institution that today maintains that what it had said beforehand is wrong loses its credibility. For instance, when Dignitatis Humanae proclaimed the right to religious freedom, who knows how many people asked themselves: have not the Popes taken into consideration the rights of the human person up until now? Similarly, today the Pope updates a doctrine that the Church has always taught, therefore many people are highly likely to ask themselves why the Church has been mistaken for such a long time and has managed to realise that death penalty is against human dignity only today. The Magisterium of the Church has taught for centuries that death penalty is lawful. The greatest theologians and jurists reflected on this issue, and all of them agreed upon its lawfulness. Saint Thomas Aquinas, from whose doctrine some Pontiffs had commanded not to move away, had a clear idea about death penalty. 

2. Pius X admitted death penalty, the new Catechism forbids it: can Catholic faith tolerate two conflicting Catechisms? 

The Church’s teaching cannot contradict itself. The symbols of faith are more than one, the Apostles Creed is different from the Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed, but they do not contradict each other. When the Catechism of John Paul II went into effect, in no way did it contradict the Catechism of Saint Pius X, which was still into force. Indeed, if a faithful had wanted to regulate his or her life on the basis of the Catechism of Saint Pius X, he or she would have been perfectly in conformity with the Church’s teaching. The new catechism does not abolish the former ones, but if a faithful wanted to regulate his or her life on the basis of the Catechism of John Paul II or on that of Saint Pius X, he would not be in conformity with the latest teaching of the Church. As a matter of fact, the Catechism of Pope Sarto answers the question “ Are there cases in which it is lawful to kill?” as follows: “it is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defence of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor”.

3. If today the teaching about death penalty changes, is not the one about homosexuality likely to change as well? 

There might be a resounding change about moral absolutes (actions that are intrinsically wrong): adultery is allowed under some conditions, whereas death penalty is never allowed. 

Thank you and kind regards. My compliments for the beautiful and very good restyling of your website. 

United in prayer

Rev. G.A.

Dear Father Angelo, 

I would like to ask you a question about the Catechism and the truths that it contains. I take the cue from a piece of news I have read on the newspapers, namely that the Pope has “updated” the paragraph of the Catechism concerning death penalty, claiming that it is substantially (although the Pope does not employ this expression) an intrinsically evil action. On the contrary, the Catechism of John Paul II used to teach that theoretically it is acceptable, and that, under some particular conditions, it could be implemented, albeit these conditions are nowadays nearly nonexistent. Therefore I ask you:

What is the teaching of the Church concerning death penalty and how can we reconcile this (apparent) contradiction? 

What is the degree of authority that the Church has assigned to this teaching up until John Paul II, and what is the degree of authority that Pope Francis has when he gives this teaching? 

Can the Catechism contain false teachings? 

Thank you in advance for your kindness. I remember you in my prayers.

Answers from the priest

Dear friends,

1. The teaching of the Church concerning death penalty belongs to the field of her social doctrine. The Church’s Social Doctrine is a set of “principles for reflection, criteria for judgement and norms of action”  aimed at building a civil and international society according to the integral good of the human person (Cf. Congregation for Catholic Education, Guidelines for the Study and Teaching of the Church’s Social Doctrine in the Formation of Priests, nn.18 and 29-46). 

2. It is first and foremost a set of principles for reflection: these are principles that concern the dignity of the human person, its relationship with society, the principles governing social life (common good, solidarity and subsidiarity), the organic concept of social life, participation, humanization of  structures and the universal purpose of goods.

These ethical principles make up the theoretical dimension of the Church’s social doctrine, they are permanent and always valid. 

3. The Church’s social doctrine is also made up of criteria for judgment: “an anaIysis of the documents points out that the social doctrine of the Church contains numerous judgments about concrete situations,structures, social systems and ideologies.

Some cases can be cited as examples: Rerum novarum speaks about the causes of the workers’ malaise and refers to the ‘yoke’ imposed on them by ‘a very small number of very rich people’; Quadragesimo anno judges that the state of human society at that time favors violence and struggles; Vatican Council II describes the imbalances of the modern world and concludes by asserting that they lead to discouragement, conflicts and misfortunes directed against man; Populorum progressio does not hesitate to denounce the relations between developed and developing countries as unjust etc […] (Ibidem, n. 59)

Obviously, the formulation of moral judgments about social situations, structures and systems does not bear the same degree of authority, which is proper to the Magisterium of the Church, when pronouncements are made about fundamental principles” (Ibidem, n. 60). 

4. Finally, the Church’s social doctrine is made up of directives for action; as a matter of fact, being directed towards the evangelization of society,  the social doctrine of the Church “necessarily includes an invitation to social action by offering, for the different situations, adequate directives inspired by the fundamental principles and criteria for judgment  […].

The action that is suggested is not deduced a priori once and for all from philosophical and ethical considerations. Instead, it is specified case by case through Christian discernment of reality interpreted in the light of the Gospel and the social teaching of the Church which demonstrates its up-datedness in every historical moment.

It would therefore be a grave doctrinal and methodological error if, in the interpretation of the probIems of each historical era, the rich experience acquired by the Church and expressed in her social teaching were not taken into consideration” (Ibidem, n. 63).

Well, the issue of death penalty concerns all of these three elements.

On the one hand, the Church considers the sacrality and the intangibility of human life, and this is immutable doctrine. On the other hand, She has to take into account the necessity to protect every person against the wickedness of the criminals and, at the same time, the necessity to rehabilitate the offenders. On these points the judgements and the directives for actions are changeable because the situations we live in are changeable.

5. Hence, after pondering all of these elements, we understand the reasons for the changes that the teaching of the Church about death penalty has undergone.

The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent wrote: “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” (T.N.: this quotation is drawn from a translation into English of the Roman Catechism edited by John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. and based on the  Manutian text as reflected in the Maredsous edition of 1902, the fourth Roman edition of 1907 and the Turin edition of 1914. Father Angelo’s quotation, although similar in meaning, is a little different as for the wording. There might be other translations which better reflect Father Angelo’s thought, but at the moment I am unable to find them. I apologise for the inconvenience. Translator Alessandra N.).

6. After four centuries, in Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II, among the welcome signs of the spreading of the culture of life, mentions “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” (EV 27).

7. The same Pope, delivering a talk in Saint Louis (Missouri, United States), namely in a state where the vast majority of the population is, as a matter of common knowledge, favourable to death penalty, uttered these words: “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 […] for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary”. (Cfr. Apostolic Journey to America, Eucharistic Celebration, Homily of His Holiness John Paul II, St. Louis, 27 January 1999).

A month earlier, in the message for Christmas, he had wished for an increase in consensus on the measures in favor of man, such as “to end the death penalty” (Cfr. Urbi et Orbi Message of His Holiness John Paul II, Christmas 1998). 

8. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, harking back to the traditional doctrine of the Church, acknowledges the lawfulness of death penalty if there is no other way to protect effectively human lives: “the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. [Lk 23:40-43].

If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person” (CCC 2267). 

9. Thus, the Magisterium had nearly declared that death penalty is outdated, because today, thanks to maximum security prisons, there are effective ways to protect human lives.

The explicit surpassing of death penalty has been declared by Pope Francis who, with the rescriptum of the 1 August 2018, has commanded to update the paragraph n. 2267 of the CCC as follows: “Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide”.

10. This being the case, the Church does not retract Her previous teaching, which had to take into account the situation of the society of that time.

Today, prisons guarantee a higher degree of security and effectively prevent those who are in prison from harming innocent people, therefore the Church declares that death penalty has no more sense.

It has no sense because it does not restore justice.

It has no sense because it does not  protect the lives of innocent people more than a maximum security prison does.  And, most of all, because it does not salvage anything of the lives of offenders. 

11. Neither can this lead to “a resounding change about moral absolutes (actions that are intrinsically wrong): adultery is allowed under some conditions, whereas death penalty is never allowed”.

In the first place, adultery is never licit, all the more so because it is a negative moral precept that binds semper et pro semper. There is no exception towards it.

Whereas the evaluation of subjective guilt in specific circumstances is an entirely different thing. 

12. Secondly, the teaching of the Church about death penalty regards the social doctrine of the Church. In this field, there are doctrinal and immutable elements (such as the sacrality of the human person) and criteria for judgment and directives for action that have to conform to the concrete situations one finds himself to work  in.

They are changeable by nature. 

Thank you for the questions you asked. 

I wish you all the best, I remember you to the Lord and I ask for His blessing on your life and on the good you do. 

Father Angelo.