Capital Punishment: Inadmissible?

 We read this morning that in 2023 then Cardinal Prevost firmly agreed with the "seamless garment theory" (of Cardinal Bernadine, restated by Cardinal Cupich) and specifically the "inadmissibility" of the death penalty. 

First, of course, it is important that this was said prior to his election as pope. Not everything he has said over the years now is cloaked with inerrancy and authority. If he repeats this now as pope it has to be taken seriously. 

But more important is the word itself, as used by Pope Francis. "Inadmissibility." A strange word when speaking about morality. He did NOT say we now recognize it as inherently evil. Nor did he clarify in the manner of John Paul and Benedict that it remains fundamentally a prudential decision. He did not use the classic language of Catholic ethics but used a different word. What does it mean?

It means "cannot be admitted." It does not mean evil, sinful, wrong. It is the language of social acceptability. For example: no admission without tie and shoes, or if under 3 feet tall, or under 12 years old. My daughters tell their children: "That is not appropriate." This is very close to the meaning of "inadmissible." It is not a moral judgement; it is about social propriety. So, for example, "potty talk" is not appropriate. Loud talk in the library likewise. Burping and flatulence in public even more so. In the courtroom, language is ruled "inadmissible" for technical reasons; in another state or even before another judge it might be allowed.

Conservatives argue that if Francis is now recognizing the inherent evil of capital punishment than the Church has for centuries been in error. This opens the gates for all doctrines to be reconsidered. So he uses the language, not of ethics, but of propriety.

However, the language of social propriety is always fluid, prudential, relative to culture/circumstance and allowing of exceptions. Burping in Arab cultures indicates satisfaction with the meal. As a grandfather, I reserve the right to indulge in light "potty talk" from time to time; I do not confess it. My gerontologist and I discuss bowel movements and nightly urinations without shame. Shouting in the library is not just allowed, but morally required in case of fire, active shooter, or a rabid racoon. 

Therefore, the ever-emotional Francis was in fact not making a clear moral decision on the death penalty. Rather, he was cloaking in highest intensity his emotional, social, sentimental disgust with the practice. He is passionate about it. But not intellectually decisive, authoritative or clear. 

So, our hermeneutic can take the word according to its meaning. Capital punishment is indeed repulsive, abhorrent, unfortunate, revolting, nauseating, regrettable, inadmissible. It is not inherently, always, absolutely evil. It is related to personal and cultural taste. But more fundamentally of pragmatic judgement. It is not binding upon the Catholic conscience. 

We wait to see what Pope Leo will say. I suspect he will let it sit: neither reverse it nor strengthen it. If he restates its "inadmissibility" we can relax; sympathize with the sentiment; but remain free in conscience to practice the natural law as handed down through the centuries. It remains a tool for the secular state to use, only when necessary, to protect the community.