Mario

Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004 speaking officially as Pope St. John Paul II’s chief doctrinal officer. This remains the only position on capital punishment consistent with scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and papal teaching up to Benedict XVI. ewtn.com/catholicism/library…

A response to @mfjlewis, for anyone who is still interested. In this latest article, Lewis writes: “Feser has continued to insist relentlessly through his blog, articles, and podcast appearances that the Catholic faith cannot allow for the position that recourse to the death penalty is inadmissible.” Not a promising beginning, and the article just goes downhill from there. As those who’ve bothered to read with any care what I’ve written on this topic are well aware, what I’ve actually said is that the Catholic faith cannot allow for the position that recourse to the death penalty is intrinsically evil. If to say that the death penalty is “inadmissible” is not to say that it is intrinsically evil, then there is no problem. But in that case, as I’ve argued, there is no other plausible way to read the claim that the death penalty is “inadmissible” than as a prudential judgment to the effect that under current circumstances, the death penalty is never needed in order to uphold public safety. And that rests on certain empirical assumptions (for example, about whether the death penalty deters, and about whether imprisonment is in every single case sufficient to protect others against the most dangerous offenders) about which the Church has no special expertise. Catholics cannot be bound to agree with such prudential judgments, any more than they can be bound to agree with the pope about which traffic regulations would be most efficient or which toothpaste is best. I have many times pointed out this distinction between (a) teaching that the death penalty is intrinsically evil and (b) teaching merely, as a matter of prudential judgment, that it is never needed today. I’ve explained many times why there is no third option. I’ve explained many times why for the Church to do (a) would contradict scripture, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all previous popes who have spoken on the matter, and why such a contradiction would conflict with the Church’s own claims about the authority of scripture and tradition. I’ve explained many times why for the Church to do (b) is to teach something that the faithful need only respectfully consider but are not obligated to agree with. I’ve shown many times that these points have nothing to do with any personal opinions of my own, but instead follow from what the Magisterium itself has said. In his latest article, Lewis just ignores all of this, as he always does. He speaks as if the controversy is essentially about accepting or rejecting the claim that the death penalty is “inadmissible.” In reality, as I and others have pointed out 1,234 times, what is in question is what, exactly, it means to say that it is “inadmissible,” because the claim is ambiguous. In particular, it is ambiguous between (a) and (b). And the problem is that if we go with (a), we have a conflict with scripture and tradition (which we should not accept), whereas if we go with (b) we have no such conflict, but are left with a merely prudential judgment (which we need not accept). Instead of addressing this problem, Lewis simply reiterates that the Church teaches that the death penalty is “inadmissible” and scolds those who point out the ambiguity and the problems that result however we resolve it. Lewis also appeals to the “development” of doctrine, ignoring the fact that (as I and other critics have pointed out again and again) the Church has always been clear that a true development can build on but never contradict scripture, the Fathers, and the consistent teaching of previous popes. He accuses me and other critics of pitting our “personal views” against Pope Francis’s teaching, but (as I and the other critics have pointed out again and again) the problem is not that Pope Francis disagrees with us, but rather that he seems to disagree with scripture and previous popes. Lewis accuses me and the other critics of appealing to our own personal interpretation of scripture, when in fact it is the way that the Church herself has always interpreted the relevant scriptural texts that the pope appears to be contradicting. And so on. Like his other writings on this topic, Lewis’s latest article is simply one long exercise in begging the question, reiterating at length assertions his critics have already refuted many times, without answering those refutations. Readers interested in pursuing these matters in greater depth might find these articles of mine useful: “Capital punishment and the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium”: catholicworldreport.com/2018… “Three questions for Catholic opponents of capital punishment”: catholicworldreport.com/2020… “Fastiggi on Capital Punishment and the Change to the Catechism”: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/202…