The previous two essays considered the death penalty within the traditional pragmatic thinking of the Catholic Church; but it failed to confront the basic thrust of the papal change in the Catechism: the articulation of a new moral absolute.
THE DEATH PENALTY IS INADMISSIBLE AS IT IS A DIRECT ASSAULT ON THE INVIOLABILITY AND DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON.
On the face of it, this is a new moral absolute, a radical development of doctrine. It is not argued or demonstrated from natural law, or Church tradition. It is presented as self-evident, dogmatically, beyond discussion. Disagreement is cancelled. This is declared by Pope Francis unilaterally, without any public consultation with bishops or episcopal consensus. Nor has there been a "synodal-type" process, involving law enforcement professionals and scholars and possibly inclusive of others beyond our Church such as Jews and other genocide-survivors, Islamists, Communists and possibly Nietzchean nihilists!
Why and when did this become such a clear, absolute moral principle? For example, the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, within historical memory, executed 12 of the Nazi leaders responsible for the world war and genocide of the Jews. Virtually unanimous agreement on the justice of that action has prevailed since then. There is little argument about it. Is that now to be seen as a "direct assault on the dignity of the human person?" Or has something changed since then?
Historical Change?
As we have established, this new teaching is a direct contradiction of accepted teaching and practice. Catholic doctrine always develops organically, in continuity with the past, unveiling aspects previously more obscure but never reversing or contradicting teaching. Therefore, the Pope could not suddenly define a new "intrinsic evil" without undermining the entirety of Catholic moral teaching. And so a change in historical circumstances is alleged by Pope Francis:
"Today, however, there is 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." Pope Francis address Oct. 13, 2017
The word "today" is key. With this word, a continuity of moral teaching is affirmed but a change in circumstances is alleged. What is this change? Let us consider:
"...there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes." This is a strange argument. I have never heard or read in the tradition that "the dignity of a person is lost after a crime." The entire Catholic moral tradition maintains the continuing dignity of the person even in grave sin as well as the offer of mercy when there is contrition. Prazini did not lose his dignity in the eyes of St. Therese after his murder; Serenelli did not lose his dignity in the eyes of St. Maria Gioretti or the Church that heard his testimony in her canonization process. We all know Jesus words "This very day you will be with me in paradise." This statement is frankly offensive, an insult to our tradition.
"...a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state." Really? Okay, what is this new understanding? It is not explained. There has apparently been some invisible, unarticulated change in our communal consciousness that everyone is supposed to intuit. I will venture my guess what has changed: the value of retribution is no longer upheld as an aspect of legal punishment. This was present even in Pope John Paul and Benedict in that they did not address the question. It is the null curriculum; it is systemically avoided. It is not discussed. It is cancelled. But it is an enduring reality that cannot be avoided so casually!
...systems of detention have been developed which protect citizens but do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption..." The adequacy of our prisons is a pragmatic argument that is not entirely persuasive. But the "redemption" piece is more problematic. Clearly, rehabilitation to a decent life in this world is foreclosed by execution; but repentance from sin in preparation for the next is possibly enhanced by confrontation with a definite death sentence.
An Emotive, Sentimental Intuition
This judgment of "a direct assault upon human dignity" is an emotional, sentimental statement, not a reasoned, principled development of moral thought in line with tradition. It is a feeling. A feeling of moral repulsion. It is understandable: there is a nauseating odor to the sight of the powerful, secular state using all its power to execute a single, lonely criminal. I share the aesthetic! But we need to think!
The new moral dogma of Francis is in some ways a continuation of the thought of Popes John Paul and Benedict. Both opposed the death penalty on prudential grounds, alleging the adequacy of our prison systems. Neither of them clearly addressed the issue of retribution. Without full explanation (to my knowledge!), they seemed to dismiss it, leaving final justice to the afterlife, and rejecting execution except in rare cases. They clearly shared the moral intuition of moral repulsion, but they did not elevate it to an absolute as did Francis. Theoretically, at least, they remained within the tradition, allowing for dissent on prudential grounds. They did not change the teaching as did Francis.
Pope Francis is anti-intellectual, emotive and sentimental. This is not good for a pope. He told mafia bosses that they were going to hell if they didn't repent, but then told his agnostic friend that God would never send anyone to hell. He told a group of adolescents, on a Disney documentary, that the Church's teaching on sexuality was "still in diapers" thus dishonoring our tradition. His blanket condemnation of the death penalty is consistent with such emotivism.
I do not share this intuition. It is not clear to me that psychopaths like Hitler, Putin or those who torture innocent children are "violated" in their dignity by being executed. Execution of such seems to me to be a minimal, modest, reasoned retribution; an affirmation of the dignity of the victims and the community. It enhances their dignity and gives them time before the execution to turn to God in repentance. I do not find this intuition in the thinking of the doctors, fathers, saints or popes.
Spiritual Roots of this Moral Intuition
The pragmatic arguments against the practice are on the whole convincing, but not overwhelmingly so. The real issue is this intuition of the "assault on human dignity." What has changed, since say Nuremberg in 1946, beside improvements in prisons?
A diminished sense of the supernatural...in three crucial dimensions.
1. While in the USA large majorities believe in heaven, we are largely removed from death; we live comfortable and secure; and have in our day-to-day lives little awareness of the Judgement awaiting us. Even the pious among us live as seculars; we do not vividly anticipate our destiny; we live for today. And so, the idea of depriving one of life-on-earth seems to be the greatest evil.
2. Underestimation of Evil, Sin, Lucifer and Hell. In our bourgeois comfort, we may cognitively affirm these beliefs but we remove ourselves from the brutalities of spiritual combat. We psychologize and politicize human suffering. We lessen our sense of the Sacred; of sacrilege; of holiness and evil. And so we naively hope to rehabilitate, protect and deter without recourse to the harsh love of retribution.
3. Suspicion of authority. A secular, quasi-Marxist viewpoint fails to see any divine dimension in human authority (parents, Church, state) and sees always the raw exercise of human power. There is, of course, some truth in that all human actors and institutions are sinful and prone to evil. (See 2 above.) But authority in itself comes from heaven and is itself good. And so, retribution for evil can be a good and even heavenly exercise. The modern mind cannot conceive of this.
Respect Due the Church and Pope?
The Catechism teaching on this issue is not infallible, but is authoritative. As such we Catholics owe it attention and respect. If it does not make sense to us, we are required to wait and pray...either for our own enlightenment or that of the Church. It is not impossible that that Catechism correction was itself a mistake. Active dissent would normally be disloyal. So why this fierce argument?
It is that the Church, specifically the hierarchy, today is in a crisis of truth. We face sex and financial scandals, polarization and confusion coming even from the Vatican. As a lay person I have a responsibility to witness to the truth, even when that is dissonant with the teaching of the pope. In a dysfunctional family, a parent who is alcoholic, abusive or adulterous, it is not helpful to deny or enable the situation. Rather, love in truth will require honest confrontation. That is the position today of those of us who love our tradition.
Witness of St. John Paul and Pope Benedict
I realize I am picking a theological fight here, not only with Pope Francis and most of the contemporary Church, but with my two heroes, St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict. My reverence for their holiness, wisdom, erudition and life experience is immense. They lived through and confronted Nazism, Communism, Cultural Liberalism of the West and Islamic violence. In almost everything theological, I defer to their authority and competence.
Their formulation on capital punishment avoided the absolutism of Pope Francis and allowed some discussion on prudential grounds. But I see that their dismissal of retribution is a real theological difference I have with them. This is the only fault I find. But I trust their combined theological insight more than my own.
Therefore, all the argument I have given above I place under suspicion, in probation, in testing. I doubt that I am right and they are both wrong. Perhaps you my grandchildren or someone in the family will correct me. So I will wait, and pray... for humility and wisdom...for myself and for the Church.
In the meantime, to get you into a more retribution mood, listen to Johnny Cash sing "The Man Comes Around."
No comments:
Post a Comment