The Cathechism now states
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes…
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.
Dignity arguments are always fallacious when claiming to establish universal norms. This is because the way that dignity is recognized is entirely culture-dependent. As with standards of modesty, the intentional object of dignity is an objective, universal reality, but the rules of its expression vary from people to people. Even as we recognize this, we are nevertheless bound by rules of our own people. Indeed, to follow a customary rule with full knowledge of its contingency is to make two acts of recognition at once, the first to the universal object (the dignity of persons, in this case) and the second to the value of spiritual unity with one’s people. My neighbor’s dignity deserves to be recognized, and my people deserve that I should do it in the manner of my ancestors and neighbors. Thus, dignity arguments may well be valid for the culture in which they are made.
For example, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about the owning of slaves. The Church has recognized this from the beginning, and abolitionist arguments all fail (at least as intending to prove the intrinsic inadmissibility of slavery as opposed to noting some dangers and disadvantages of the practice). No slave-owning people would have agreed that they fail to recognize the humanity of their slaves, and they knew their own minds far better than self-righteous Bostonians. However, abolitionist propaganda has convinced the larger culture that to own a slave is to assert his lack of dignity or “full” humanity (whatever that means), so now it has become immoral for us to purchase slaves, because we would now see this act as demeaning our slaves, and it is sinful to intend to demean according to the customs of one’s society. For example, there is nothing intrinsically immoral, absent cultural context, about sticking one’s tongue out at another person, but if one’s people regard this act as a sign of ultimate hatred and scorn, then it is immoral to do so.
Pope Francis now provides an analogous argument against the death penalty. That execution intrinsically fails to recognize the dignity of the condemned is absurd. It is, in fact, the ultimate recognition of him as a moral agent. All other times and places have recognized this. The Church herself has always recognized it. There are strong arguments for the intrinsic immorality of the death penalty, but this is not one of them. Dignity arguments can at most apply within a single cultural context. Thus, the Pope must appeal to “Today…growing awareness…” Just execution by lawful authority may be in itself morally admissible, but we in the West have developed this bizarre hangup over killing people, so we should not do it.
Alternatively, one could regard the change to the Catechism as an act of papal authority. The death penalty is not intrinsically immoral, but the spiritual power is superior to the temporal, and Christ’s Vicar on Earth now commands temporal powers to refrain from this act. However, my explanation at least makes some use of His Holiness’ arguments, which appear to use his teaching/declarative role rather than his ruling/imperative role. (“The Church teaches…” rather than “the Church commands…”)
I begin to think that it is becoming spiritually perilous for the laity to seek to know what the Church’s teaching is on topics which do not affect us personally. The experience of physics and mathematics has led us to expect that the truth should be simple, beautiful, and clear. We would like to have a few clear principles to understand, defend, and apply. But when we wish to know what the Church teaches about something like the death penalty, we find that we cannot proceed as we would wish. Instead of applying general principles, we must first gather two thousand years of documents, then try to carefully parse the language in each one looking for some set of readings that will make all of them consistent. I admit that my mind rebels against this, and I say to myself “I don’t have time for all this lawyer sh*t”. Perhaps this is my pride, that I think myself too good for “lawyer sh*t”. Perhaps I’m just spoiled by science and philosophy. But then again, there’s no reason why I must understand what the Church teaches on the death penalty. I am not a magistrate with the power of life and death, and the Church has made it clear that she doesn’t want amateur apologists like me picking fights on her behalf. So perhaps I should just leave it at that. I do not know if the death penalty is always immoral. I do not know what the Church teaches about it. The question of faith–do I believe that what the Church teaches about it is true?–does not even arise for me on this issue.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »