Ahmaud Arbery

I wonder how many people who profess outrage at the murder of Ahmaud Arbery believe his killers should be executed? Or do they oppose the death penalty? It's an easy call for me, but that's because I support capital punishment. The execrable Dylann Roof is still alive because, thanks to the political correctness  of the Obama DOJ, he was charged with hate crimes rather than murder. 

Life imprisonment

Another reason why you can't trust progressives on crime:

https://mynorthwest.com/1703297/rantz-washington-democrats-release-murderers-end-life-without-parole/

Erasing Catholic teaching

The teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (here after CCC) has undergone substantive since its initial publication. I wonder how many Catholics compare different editions to register the changes. In addition, there's a distinction between print editions and electronic revisions. Nowadays the CCC can be revised or updated without formally issuing or announcing a third edition, fourth edition, &c.. 

The official edition is at the Vatican website. While it's convenient to be able to read the CCC online, a downside of the electronic version is that whenever it's revised, that erases the prior history of the CCC's teaching. 

It's also becoming harder to check the online version against print editions because libraries are eliminating print books. They take up space and fewer borrowers check them out. 

Another complication is that the "canonical" text is in Latin, so the wording of English translations may vary a bit. Likewise, when the Latin text is revised, there might be lag time to revise translations. All these factors make it harder to compare different editions of the CCC back-to-back. Unless you happen to own a print copies of the first and second editions, it's hard to make a direct comparison from the primary sources. Sometimes you can get the text from secondary sources that discuss changes to the CCC. 

I see some Catholic apologists offer the face-saving explanation that the first edition was "provisional". But the first edition wasn't a draft copy. It was approved for publication by Pope John-Paul II and Cardinal Ratziger, then Prefect for the CDF and chairman of the CCC committee. It contains the foreword ("Apostolic Constitution") by John-Paul II, where he declares is "declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith":

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/aposcons.htm

Let's compare two examples where the teaching of the CCC has undergone substantive alteration. 

1. Lying

Original edition

2483 To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has a right to know the truth. 

Revision:

2483 To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error.

2. Capital Punishment

Original edition:

2266 Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. 

First revision (John-Paul II)

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and the duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. 

Second revision (Pope Francis)

2267. 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”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide. 

3. Taking stock

In the case of lying, the revision eliminates the proviso: someone who has a right to know the truth

In the case of capital punishment, the first revision eliminates the proviso: not excluding, in cases of extreme gravity, the death penalty. 

While the second revision rules out capital punishment in principle. 

These are fundamental issues in Catholic moral theology, so it's striking to see the teaching of the CCC undergo substantive change or reversal in the course of a few years. 

4. For further reference:

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995 print edition)

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/11/what-counts-as-lie.html

https://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/180802a.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20130312145145/http://old.usccb.org/sdwp/national/criminal/catechism.shtml

The scandalous catechism

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/an-appeal-to-the-cardinals-of-the-catholic-church

The development of doctrine

I'd like to make one comment on this:

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/0556/01210.html#letteraing

So the new position is classified as a development of doctrine. And that's justified by appeal to the teaching of John-Paul II and Benedict XVI. A couple of points:

i) Strictly speaking, doctrine is not supposed to develop. Rather, allowance is made for evolution in how doctrine is understood. So I assume "development of doctrine" is shorthand for developments in the understanding of doctrine.

ii) The frame of reference for the development of doctrine isn't supposed to be the teaching of the 20C pope, but the deposit of faith:

This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. De Verbum 2.8. 

The deposit of faith is apostolic tradition:

81 "And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. 

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. 

84 The apostles entrusted the "Sacred deposit" of the faith (the depositum fidei),45 contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm

That's the benchmark. That's the point of departure. So the starting-point a development of doctrine isn't something a pope says, much less a 20C pope. Rather, that's supposed to trace all the way back to the deposit of faith. To justify the new position on capital punishment, it's necessary to demonstrate that this is a legitimate extension or extrapolation of apostolic tradition–and not a legitimate extension or extrapolation of John-Paul II's position on capital punishment. 

But in reality, this is all about power. The pope has all the high cards, so he can impose it on his sect by papal fiat. Appeal to development is just a cosmetic cover. 

Saving Catholicism from the pope

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2018/08/pope-francis-and-capital-punishment

How to paint yourself into a corner

Convert to Catholicism and Catholic philosopher Ed Feser:

For another thing, if the Pope is saying that capital punishment is always and intrinsically immoral, then he would be effectively saying – whether consciously or unconsciously – that previous popes, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and even divinely inspired Scripture are in error. If this is what he is saying, then he would be attempting to “make known some new doctrine,” which the First Vatican Council expressly forbids a pope from doing. He would, contrary to the teaching of Pope Benedict XVI, be “proclaim[ing] his own ideas” rather than “bind[ing] himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word.” He would be joining that very small company of popes who have flirted with doctrinal error. And he would be undermining the credibility of the entire Magisterium of the Church, including his own credibility. For if the Church has been that wrong for that long about something that serious, why should we trust anything else she teaches? And if all previous popes have been so badly mistaken about something so important, why should we think Pope Francis is right? 

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/10/15/the-popes-remarks-on-capital-punishment-need-to-be-clarified/

That was before Francis made it official by rewriting the Catechism. 

Catholic pacifism

This is a sequel to my previous post:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/08/papal-eraser.html

1. Ross Douthat characterized the change in Catholic policy on the admission of divorced Catholics to communion as a elite crisis. I don't know whether the change regarding capital punishment will precipitate another crisis, but I'd say this is more of a rank-and-file issue. The doctrinal issues surrounding the readmission of divorced Catholics to communion are arcane and artificial. Only theological junkies care about that. By contrast, the reasoning behind the death penalty is much more accessible to the laity. 

2. Gen 9:5-6 only directly authorizes capital punishment for murder. Yet the Mosaic law contains many capital offenses. In some cases, those may have a different rationale, such as the cultic holiness of Israel. In other cases, they may be an extension of the same principle: actions which desecrate divine image-bearers. 

3. In relation to the new Catholic position, it isn't necessary to take a position on the degree of continuity or discontinuity between the Mosaic law and the new covenant. For the immediate question isn't whether any of those penalties remain mandatory, but whether they were ever morally permissible to begin with. If “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, then the Mosaic death penalties were always unwarranted. 

Of course, many Catholic bishops, theologians, and academics are happy to grant that the Mosaic law was fallible and errant. Problem is, why should "the Church" be infallible if the Bible is fallible? Why should ecumenical councils or ex cathedra papal pronouncements be infallible if the Mosaic law is fallible and errant? 

4. If “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, then that seems to rule out lethal force in self-defense as well as lethal force to protect other innocent lives, for taking human life, regardless of the situation, is an attack in the inviolability and dignity of the assailant. 

Christian ethicists typically think that humans have a prima facie right to life which they can forfeit by certain actions. An armed intruder breaking into a private home forfeits his prima facie immunity to suffer harm.

However, the new official position of the Catholic church treats the dignity of the assailant as equal to the dignity of the victim. That's absolute. Nothing the assailant does can lower his inviolate dignity.

5. This approach erases the distinction between guilt and innocence, which is the essence of justice. The very concept of just punishment requires a distinction between a wrongdoer and a victim who was wronged. Justice is supposed to treat like cases alike and unlike cases unalike. It subverts the essence of justice to treat innocents and assailants equally. 

Papal eraser

1. Pope Francis has rewritten the Catechism to forbid capital punishment across the board. Here's the official announcement:

http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/it/bollettino/pubblico/2018/08/02/0556/01210.html#letteraing

And here's the newly worded position in the CCC: 

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.

Ross Douthat on the death penalty vis-a-vis Francis

Ross Douthat 
@DouthatNYT
And life imprisonment under many penal conditions seems more contrary to human dignity than the death penalty.

But the bottom line is that this is another example of how Pope Francis has consistently exposed the tensions in the post-Vatican II conservative position, and pushed the JPII synthesis into intellectual crisis.

Now Francis is going further, doing something dramatic enough to be described as "development of doctrine" or a "new paradigm" -- but still preserving a touch of deniability on the definitiveness of the change, in which continuitarians can take refuge.

Another way to see this is that on both the death penalty and divorce, the JPII synthesis stretched the claim of continuity -- with a prudential anti-death penalty arg that *sounded* absolute, and a liberal annulment policy -- without making a formal break.

Which is also the effective pattern in other arenas -- like divorce -- where Francis has sought to shift a teaching without formally using the language of reversal. You can argue that constant teaching remains constant, but no normal person listening to popes would think that.

But anyone arguing for continuity has to recognize that at the very least this kind of shift turns the traditional teaching into a sort of hermetic secret, available to ppl who read extremely carefully but invisible in the normal public teaching of the church.

So you could argue -- and some will -- that we're still stopping sort of reversal, that the church is still emphasizing modern conditions to make a prudential argument rather than an absolute one -- even though some of its language is absolutizing.

Now we have new language that seems to go further, describing the death penalty as "inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person," and urging its worldwide abolition.

Reinventing Catholicism

http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2018/08/02/pope-francis-changes-catechism-to-say-death-penalty-inadmissible/

Not bearing the sword in vain

for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4).

This is a classic prooftext for capital punishment, but is that what it means? According to Ben Witherington:

But does "the sword" refer to the general functions of government, or is Paul already thinking more particularly about the tax police? I believe the reference to taxes in vv6-7 is just a pertinent illustration of the general principle that officials do have the right to use force. But it is unlikely that Paul has capital punishment in view, for which the weapon mentioned was not used. Romans practiced crucifixion, or beheading by a much more lethal weapon. B. Witherington, Paul's Letter to the Romans (Eerdmans 2004), 314.

Several issues:

i) Witherington is a pacifist, so that may bias his interpretation.  In fairness, proponents of the death penalty can have a bias in reverse. 

ii) The context involves the Roman magistrate punishing malefactors. The "sword" as a reference to capital punishment would be fitting in that setting.

iii) In addition, Paul already mentioned the sword in 8:35. There, the implied context is martyrdom, where Christians may face execution for their faith. Since it refers to capital punishment in that previous passage, this makes it more likely that it refers to capital punishment in 13:4.

iv) It may include capital punishment without singling out capital punishment. It may be a symbol or synecdoche for lethal force generally, such as how Rome forcibly responded to uprisings. 

v) Commenting on Rom 8:35, where the same Greek word is used Jewett says:

The climatic tribulation in Paul's catalogue is capital punishment, referred to here as machaira, the short sword or dagger opposed to the long sword. In Rev 13:10; Mt 10:34,38f.; Acts 12:2; Heb 11:34,37, this word refers to execution by the sword, the ultimate punishment of the state…And that the sword was regularly employed in Rome in the enforcement of its decreers, such as the Edict of Claudius, hardly needs to be recalled. R. Jewett, Romans (Fortress Press 2007), 547.

Whether or not the Greek word was the technical term for the kind of sword used to decapitate offenders, Jewett documents NT usage, where the word is employed in capital cases. 

vi) In sum, I think 13:4 probably covers capital punishment, although the sword may be applied more widely. 

Papal silly putty

Having reversed church policy on the admission of adulterous Catholics to communion, Francis is now making moves to reverse church policy on capital punishment. This has been in the pipeline for some time now. Main difference is that he apparently intends to formalize the reversal.

For some background on the lead-up to current developments:

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/04/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/05/gods-justice-and-ours

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/antonin-scalia-and-his-critics-the-church-the-courts-and-the-death-penalty

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2016/09/had-an-interesting-conversation-with-robert-p-george.html

Catholic philosopher and convert to Catholicism Ed Feser, who has a big following on the Internet, published a defends of the traditional Catholic position on capital punishment just in time to have Pope Francis pull the rug right out from under him. One wonders if there's a breaking-point for some of these disgruntled, high-profile converts to Rome.

The controversy is useful for documenting how the magisterium is a blueprint for anarchy, as well as how Catholic "tradition" has become silly putty in the hands of the magisterium:

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/10/21/on-capital-punishment-even-the-popes-defenders-are-confused/

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/10/mcclamrock-on-by-man-shall-his-blood-be.html

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/10/30/catholic-theologians-must-set-an-example-of-intellectual-honesty-a-reply-to-prof-robert-fastiggi/

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/11/two-further-ideas-about-development-of.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/11/reply-to-brugger-and-tollefsen.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/11/reply-to-fastiggi.html

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/11/reply-to-griffiths-and-hart.html

That's just a sample. The magisterium is a blueprint for anarchy. 

Etch A Sketch theology

Catholic theology is written on an Etch A Sketch:

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/10/11/pope-francis-death-penalty-contrary-gospel

"Your Arguments Against the Death Penalty Are Junk"

"Your Arguments Against the Death Penalty Are Junk" by C'Zar Bernstein.

Should sodomites be executed?

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Say to the people of Israel…13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them (Lev 20:1-2,13).

i) The death penalty for sodomy is controversial. Unbelievers often use this as a wedge tactic. But just because a Bible verse is "offensive" doesn't mean we should discount it. 

ii) Notice, though, how the section is introduced. On the one hand, the fact that Lev 20 is specifically addressed to the "people of Israel" doesn't ipso facto rule out a wider application. Ancient Israel had a penal code because it was a nation state. Every nation state requires a penal code. And that will include laws covering sex crime, violent crime, and property crime. There's a "general equity" principle in the Mosaic law. 

iii) On the other hand, the fact that Lev 20 is specifically directed at Israelites removes any presumption that these laws apply to gentiles or Christians. It's unwarranted to automatically extrapolate these laws to a completely different socioreligious context.

iv) There's also a distinction between sins and crimes. Not every sin is a crime. There are many sins the Mosaic code doesn't criminalize. Conversely, the purity codes aren't about intrinsically right or wrong conduct, but symbolic holiness.

v) Apropos (iv), it may well be that some death penalties are due to the need to keep Eretz Israel sacrosanct. In the Mosaic code, you have a category for defiling the land. There were sacred places. And there were concentric degrees of cultic holiness. The tabernacle was holier than Eretz Israel, while the inner sanctum was holier than the sanctuary.

However, even in the OT context, it wouldn't be possible to profane the land outside Eretz Israel, because the land outside of Eretz Israel was already profane. Even though sodomy was and remains a grave sin, it cannot desecrate the land, and hence, it isn't necessary to execute offenders to reconsecrate the land (e.g. pagan Egypt, Assyria, Babylon). Moreover, the purity codes and the notion of holy places doesn't carry over into the new covenant. 

vi) That doesn't rule out the death penalty in some cases (e.g. murder). That antedates the Mosaic covenant, and its grounded in the imago Dei. 

Credulous Catholics

It's revealing to see the gullibility of faithful Catholics, including some very intelligent Catholics. Take Feser's response to Robert George:

a major difficulty for Robbie’s assertion is that then-Cardinal Ratzinger, speaking as head of the CDF and the Church’s chief doctrinal officer, explicitly denied that John Paul II had made any change to the Church’s teaching on capital punishment at the level of doctrinal principle (as opposed to prudential application of principle).  In a letter responding to an inquiry from Fr. Richard John Neuhaus about whether the teaching of Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism represented a doctrinal change, published in First Things in October of 1995, Ratzinger said:

Clearly, the Holy Father has not altered the doctrinal principles which pertain to this issue as they are presented in the Catechism, but has simply deepened the application of such principles in the context of present-day historical circumstances… In my statements during the presentation of the encyclical to the press, I sought to elucidate these elements, and noted the importance of taking such circumstantial considerations into account.  It is in this sense that the Catechism may be rewritten, naturally without any modification of the relevant doctrinal principles. (emphasis added) 

That’s about as clear a rejection as there could be of the thesis that the teaching of Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism represents a change in doctrine rather than merely a change in prudential application of doctrine.  

Fifth, contrary to what Robbie asserts, this previous teaching is in fact infallible.  Every Catholic must assent to it.  The First Vatican Council solemnly teaches that:

[T]hat meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers. 

The Council of Trent taught the same thing.  Now, many scriptural passages teach not only that capital punishment is legitimate, but also that it is legitimate even just for purposes of securing retributive justice.  (Cf. the examples Joe Bessette and I cited in our recent Catholic World Report article.)  And the Church, from the Fathers onward, has always understood these passages this way.  The various contemporary attempts creatively to re-interpret such passages simply cannot be squared with the principle that scripture must be understood to mean what the Church has always “held” it to mean. 

This is why Cardinal Ratzinger, despite his personal opposition to capital punishment, made the statements he did about the subject during his time as head of the CDF, i.e. to the effect that John Paul II’s teaching was prudential rather than doctrinal and to the effect that a good Catholic could disagree with it.  This is what Ratzinger’s famous “hermeneutic of continuity” with past teaching – and thus the very credibility of the magisterium of the Church – strictly requires. 

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/09/robert-p-george-on-capital-punishment.html

Feser is right to say the "very credibility of the magisterium" is at stake. And that's why you wouldn't expect the "the Church’s chief doctrinal officer" to openly accuse a sitting pope of altering doctrinal principles. Ratzinger is hardly a disinterested party. To begin with, it was JP2 who appointed him to be the CDF. He was serving at the pleasure of JP2. For that reason alone, he's not going to publicly contradict his boss.

Moreover, Ratzinger believes in the system. He's been a leading member of the Catholic establishment for decades. He's a convinced Catholic. Naturally he's not going to take a position that torpedos the authority of the magisterium. That would be self-defeating. Feser quotes Ratzinger as a witness to Feser's interpretation. But Ratzinger is hardly a nonpartisan referee. Ratzinger has a vested interest in defending the consistency of the magisterium. That's a cornerstone of his Catholic faith. 

So this is an illicit appeal to authority. You can't very well quote a member of the magisterium to prove the consistency of the magisterium when the consistency of the magisterium is the very issue in dispute. That fails to respond to George on his own level. That fails to refute his evidence. George is not alone  in this. Justice Scalia made the same point. There's a trajectory in recent papal teaching. That's easy to document. For instance:

https://www.firstthings.com/issue/2002/05

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2002/10/antonin-scalia-and-his-critics-the-church-the-courts-and-the-death-penalty  

Catholics like Feser are so easily taken in by Rome's runaround. 

The papacy and the death penalty

I believe that at least since John-Paul II, the papacy has been backpedaling on the death penalty. This is yet another example where Catholicism is a blueprint for anarchy:

http://thomistica.net/commentary/2015/3/5/mutationist-views-of-doctrinal-development-and-the-death-penalty

Pope Francis for president!

L'Osservatore Romano

Democrat operatives have been biting their nails in search of an acceptable candidate. This week, Pope Francis solved that problem by giving his nomination speech to a joint session of Congress. He ran on a solid Democrat platform, stressing the threat of global warming, an open borders policy, socialism, and opposition to the death penalty.

On the heels of its queer marriage and Obamacare rulings, the Supreme Court, in a 5/4 decision, reinterpreted the Constitution to waive the traditional eligibility requirement (natural born citizen) for presidential aspirants, clearly the way for the pope's candidacy. 

Euthanasia and capital punishment

Many people who oppose capital punishment are the same people who support assisted suicide. A stock objection to capital punishment is the risk of executing the innocent. If you're wrong, they don't get a second chance.

But when it comes to assisted suicide, you know that you're killing the innocent. They weren't even convicted of a serious felony. 

Moreover, they don't get to change their minds about the wisdom of committing suicide once they're dead. Death has a certain…you know…permanence.

If they hadn't undergone voluntary euthanasia, they might have overcome their depression, been in a much more upbeat mood a month later or a year later or whatever. But by assisting their demise, you rob them of a second chance. 

Why do people who support assisted suicide but oppose capital punishment think convicted killers are entitled to the benefit of the doubt, but not depressed patients?