Three Popes & Capital Punishment (vs. Ed Feser)

Last updated on: October 20, 2020 at 3:43 pm By Dave Armstrong

(with Catholic Theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi)

From the combox of my article: Steve Skojec: Pope Sez Death Penalty is Intrinsically Evil (?) [10-8-20] Catholic philosopher Ed Feser’s words will be in blue; Dr. Robert Fastiggi’s in green.

*****

Dave writes:

Philosopher Ed Feser is a big proponent of it

No, Dave, that is not what I have said. I have said that the pope’s statements on the subject are ambiguous. I have written a lot about this, most recently here.

Dave also writes:

Fastiggi does a far better job than I did, in replying to Ed Feser on this score

Fastiggi is a good man and means well, but he does a terrible job, as I have shown in several places, such as in my long exchange with him here.

I am glad to see that at least you acknowledge that a pope cannot teach that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, because, as you say, this would “massively contradict previous magisterial teaching.” Perhaps you do not realize that Fastiggi, whose views you seem to rely on, is not willing to acknowledge that. He gravely errs on that point, sadly — evidently because he wants to leave “wiggle room” for the pope if he decides explicitly to contradict the tradition.

Hi Ed,

Thanks for replying. You’re not personally in favor of capital punishment? I thought you were. Or perhaps you believe something like, “I’m personally opposed to it but popes cannot teach that it can never be used, and it is fully defensible from Catholic tradition.”

I have always held that capital punishment (over against something like abortion) is not intrinsically evil; obviously, when I favored it in some cases, and also now that I oppose it in all cases.

Bob wrote, in the article I cite (hosted on my site):

If the magisterium in the future declares capital punishment—even under certain conditions—to be intrinsically evil, I’ll abide by the magisterium’s judgment. This would be an indication that there was no prior definitive magisterial teaching on the subject. Feser could shout “error” all he wants, but his shouts could never match the authority of the Catholic magisterium.

That is not a position whereby one thinks prior Catholic tradition may be subverted or overturned, but rather, a view that (were that to occur) “prior definitive magisterial teaching” did not exist, and that one would need to reinterpret prior tradition were the Church to declare capital punishment intrinsically evil. I think this has happened many times in Catholic history, and (I would argue, and have argued in print) few if any cases of it were as striking and “shocking” as Jesus and Paul’s “reinterpretation” of the relationship of the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant to the New Covenant and the gospel.

That’s simply saying that he will abide by what the magisterium teaches, whether he was inclined to agree with a teaching that may theoretically come in the future, or not. I submit that this is the attitude that all Catholics are obliged to possess. It’s the dissent from the magisterium which is the common grave error of liberal dissenter and reactionary complainer and quasi-schismatic, pseudo-Protestant alike.

Now, I may be wrong, but my understanding of Bob’s position is that he doesn’t think capital punishment is intrinsically evil. I had extensive personal discussions with him in 2017 in my own house, the night that I changed my mind on the topic. And if I recall correctly, he claimed then (or in other discussions I had with him) that you were misrepresenting his position on this.

I will write to him today. I’m pretty sure he will want to clarify, and will likely show up in this combox to do so.

I’m always happy and grateful to be corrected, whether by you or Bob regarding your own positions, or anything else.

Hi Dave,

Yes, I think it is a bad idea to abolish capital punishment completely. But that’s not what I was referring to. Your subject line said: “Steve Skojec: Pope Sez Death Penalty is Intrinsically Evil (?)” and then your opening sentences were: “This dead horse continues to be beaten. Philosopher Ed Feser is a big proponent of it, and many reactionary Catholics take this tack. Skojec, of One Vader Five infamy, pontificated on this question yesterday, and revealed himself to be quite the cynical mind-reader.”

So, from that it is clear that you were attributing to me the claim that Pope Francis has flatly declared the death penalty to be intrinsically evil. That attribution is what I was responding to. I have not said that the pope has flatly declared it intrinsically evil. I have said that his statements are ambiguous between that reading and a “prudential judgment” reading.

Re: Fastiggi, I do not think he has said that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, but what he has said (as your quote from him indicates) is that he is not convinced that the Church has definitively taught that it is not intrinsically evil.

Now, he is simply wrong about that. The Church has in fact taught this definitively, as I have shown e.g. here.

Your original remark in your post seemed to indicate agreement with that view. You wrote: “Pope Francis, like Pope Benedict and St. John Paul II before him, is not asserting the intrinsic evil of capital punishment. Indeed, he could not, within the Catholic worldview, since this would massively contradict previous magisterial teaching.”

Fastiggi would never lock himself in like that, but you are right to do so. For such a change would indeed massively contradict previous magisterial tradition. Fastiggi wants to say instead that it would only seem to contradict it – that, if a pope decided to declare capital punishment intrinsically evil, then this would show that scripture, the popes, the Fathers, etc. had never really definitively taught that capital punishment is not intrinsically evil, but only seemed to. That what everyone for over 2,000 years took scripture and tradition to teach was really the opposite of what it really taught.

This, I submit, is Orwellian stuff (“We have always been at war with Eastasia”). It turns popes into exactly what the Church’s critics falsely accuse them of being – arbitrary dictators who can manufacture doctrine however at will, even contradicting scripture and tradition, and pretend that they are not doing so.

And the example of Jesus and Paul vis-à-vis Moses is not a good parallel. Public revelation was open then. Moses could be reversed by Christ. But as the Church has always taught, public revelation has now been closed for 2,000 years. Popes have no authority to reverse the teaching of scripture. They are not Christ, but merely his vicars. To attribute to them the power to reverse scripture the way Christ reversed Moses is precisely to embrace the caricature of the papacy that the Church’s critics always attack.

First of all, when I wrote, “Philosopher Ed Feser is a big proponent of it,” I was referring to the death penalty itself, not the notion that the pope thinks that it is intrinsically evil (which he does not). I’ll take the blame for being sufficiently unclear as to warrant a bracketed clarification. It will now read, “Philosopher Ed Feser is a big proponent of it [capital punishment]”. I didn’t think this was a controversial statement, seeing that you co-wrote a widely cited book entitled, By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment.

You still have not told me what your personal view on the matter is (I haven’t read your book). It’s not hard to do at all. So, for example, in my case, before late 2017 I believed it was permissible and just for use with mass murderers and terrorists only. Then I changed to a position whereby I think it is never warranted (while still believing it is not intrinsically evil), which I believe to basically be the position of Pope Francis and his two predecessors.

If you tell me what your own view is (i.e., in which cases you believe it is justified as a punishment), I will clarify that, too, accordingly, in the article (not wishing to misrepresent anyone and wanting to be as accurate in details as possible).

I still think you are exaggerating, if not distorting, Dr. Fastiggi’s views. As I interpreted them (and I know him pretty well, as a personal friend for more than fifteen years, and one with whom I rarely disagree), he agrees that the Church has not taught in the past that capital punishment is intrinsically evil, and does not do so now. I would guess that he would think the Church never will say that it is intrinsically evil. If this is accurate, it is identical to my own view.

All he said (again, if my reading is accurate) is that if (theoretically) the Church declared that it was intrinsically evil, then he would have to radically re-examine his own position and revise it, because this is what obedient, magisterial Catholics do. They follow the magisterium and do not believe that it ever contradicts itself. And they do not say that “the magisterium is wrong in a matter that it has infallibly determined.” That is a self-defeating position for any Catholic to take.

Of course, he needs to speak for himself and I believe he will. I wrote to him today about this. I’m sure he’s busy with his work, or he would have already responded. Or else he is preparing a massive refutation, and he is presently at work on it . . . :-)

Dave, I just told you what my view on CP is. I said: “Yes, I think it is a bad idea to abolish capital punishment completely.” Naturally, I could say more (e.g. about exactly what sorts of crimes should be eligible for CP) but that’s not the subject I was addressing in the first place. I bothered to comment on your post only because you appeared to be mistakenly attributing to me the view that the pope had flatly declared CP intrinsically evil. I appreciate your correcting the record.

Re: Fastiggi’s views, I’d direct you to my long exchange with him that I linked to above.

Re: a theoretical scenario where a pope non-infallibly declared CP intrinsically evil, I would say that what we’d have in that case is a situation — extremely rare, but it happens (as it did with Pope Honorius and Pope John XXII) — where a pope teaches error. The church and her theologians have always allowed that this is possible in principle when a pope teaches non-infallibly (indeed, the possibility of an erroneous non-infallible statement follows logically from its being non-infallible). As I have noted in several places, Donum Veritatis explicitly allows that a loyal theologian could respectfully criticize such a deficient magisterial statement.

Fastiggi is clearly extremely reluctant to acknowledge that this could happen. I understand why, because it would be a major crisis for the Church. But it is possible, and indeed has happened at least a couple of times. And Fastiggi goes too far in his desire to want to avoid countenancing such a situation, when he claims that the Church has not definitively taught that CP is not intrinsically evil, thus leaving “wiggle room” for a pope who wanted to teach that it is intrinsically evil.

Again, see the book I wrote with Joe Bessette and the article I linked to above, i.e. this one.

It simply defies all logic and evidence to pretend that scripture and the Church have not definitively taught that CP is not intrinsically evil.

Re: a scenario where a pope claimed infallibly to be teaching that CP is intrinsically evil — e.g. if he said “With my full authority as successor of Peter, I hereby infallibly declare and define that capital punishment is always and intrinsically evil” — well, that would simply falsify Catholicism, just as much as if a pope claimed infallibly to teach that the doctrine of the Trinity is false or that Christ was not divine.

Now, it would be ridiculous for a Catholic to say: “I’m a loyal Catholic. Hence, if the pope claimed infallibly to declare the doctrine of the Trinity to be false, I’d have to go along with that.” But in the same way, it would be ridiculous to say: “Since I’m a loyal Catholic, if the pope claimed infallibly to declare capital punishment to be intrinsically evil, I’d have to go along with that.” No, what that would mean in both cases is that Catholicism is false. Because though the Trinity is, of course, a more important doctrine than the legitimacy in principle of CP, the latter has nevertheless been definitively taught in scripture and tradition. Hence in either case, a pope who tried infallibly to teach otherwise would be doing what Catholicism claims a pope will never do.

But fortunately, neither of these scenarios will ever happen, because Catholicism is not false. I would say that God would prevent a pope ever from claiming infallibly to teach either of these things.

What is truly self-defeating for a Catholic is to make his position entirely unfalsifiable by saying “Even if a pope flatly contradicted scripture and all his predecessors, we’d have to accept that.” That plays right into the hands of critics of the Church who claim that popes think they can manufacture any doctrine they like and then magically make it “consistent with tradition” just by saying it is. That’s not Catholicism, it’s Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

This analogy just came to me:

Proposed Analogy: Mary Mediatrix and “Inadmissible” Capital Punishment

A) God willed to include Mary as a Mediatrix in all instances of grace extended to his creatures, even though it was not intrinsically necessary at all (God’s actions alone being sufficient). [universal “positive”]

B) Likewise, God is currently willing in the Mind of His Church (expressed through three straight popes) that — in its current development — all instances of capital punishment are “inadmissible” and contrary to a full-fledged Gospel of Life, even though capital punishment is not intrinsically evil (as the Church has always held). [universal “negative”]

In both cases, God (whose will was explicated through His Church and especially its leaders, the popes), willed that something non-necessary or intrinsically unnecessary in and of itself, is altogether “fitting and appropriate.”

The Church came to more fully understand Mary Mediatrix as the centuries unfolded, within a fuller Catholic Mariology (which is subservient to Christology), just as she has come to more fully understand that there are superior alternatives to capital punishment, and its place in a subservient relationship to the overall Gospel of Life.

It’s not a good analogy, Dave. As I show in my Catholic World Report article “Capital Punishment and the Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium” (which I linked to above), the Church has definitively taught not only that capital punishment is not intrinsically contrary to the natural law, but also that it is not intrinsically contrary to the higher demands of the Gospel. So, if the Church were to teach what you are proposing, she would be reversing herself, not developing doctrine. So the case is very different from the Mariological doctrine, which is not a reversal of past teaching at all but a development.

Furthermore, it is not correct to say that “three straight popes” have taught what you are describing. Popes JP2 and Benedict were very careful explicitly to reiterate that the traditional teaching of the Church affirms the legitimacy in principle of CP. Pope Francis has not been as cautious or precise in his statements. Indeed, as I show in my article “Three Questions for Catholic Opponents of Capital Punishment” (also linked to above), when the pope has quoted JP2, he has altered JP2’s formulations to make them more extreme, and in other ways too has made statements that are far more extreme than anything JP2 or Benedict ever said.

It is not “pope-bashing” to note that. It would be extremely easy for Pope Francis explicitly to say “Yes, of course capital punishment is not intrinsically wrong, but…” and then go on to call for its abolition in terms as strong as he likes consistent with that acknowledgement. It is not disloyal, reactionary, etc. for Catholics to express their concern about his persistent refusal to do that, any more than it was disloyal, reactionary, pope-bashing, etc. for Catholics of the past respectfully to criticize the deficient doctrinal statements of Pope Honorius and Pope John XXII.

I’m waiting for Dr. Fastiggi to chime in. Thanks again for your input.

Bob Fastiggi has responded: “I am at a Marian Symposium at the Our Lady of Guadalupe Shrine in LaCrosse, WI. I’ll write a short article responding to Feser next week.”

[nine days later]:

Thank you for your articles on capital punishment. I do intend to write a longer article on this subject, but I’ve been preoccupied with some other matters. For now, I’ll say that the term “inadmissible” is not devoid of theological meaning as some have claimed. It has been used before by the magisterium as this article shows.

Another point is that the magisterium does not need to condemn an action as intrinsically evil in order to issue a universal prohibition of it. Pope Innocent III in his 1201 Letter to the Bishop of Tiberius states that God allowed the taking of several wives by divine dispensation in Old Testament times (cf. Denz.-H, 778). Could God grant a dispensation to do something intrinsically evil? In light of the Gospel, however, The Council of Trent, in canon 2 of its Doctrine on Marriage, anathematized those who said it was lawful for Christians to have several wives (Denz.-H, 1802). So the Church has universally condemned polygamy but has refrained from teaching that it is intrinsically evil because God allowed it in the Old Testament. Even St. Thomas Aquinas was hesitant to state that the plurality of wives is absolutely against the law of nature (cf. Summa theologiae Suppl. q. 65).

Dr. Feser claims that John XXII and Honorius I were in error. Both of those popes, though, made statements on certain open questions before the Magisterium had issued definitive teachings on the subjects in question. See St. Robert Bellarmine, De Summo Pontifice, Book IV, chapters XI and XIV. Finally, it’s important for Catholics to adhere to teachings of the ordinary papal magisterium with religious submission of will and intellect according to the Pontif’s manifest mind and will (Lumen Gentium, 25). Pope Francis has clearly taught that the death penalty today is inadmissible. His manifest mind and will on the subject is clear enough, and Catholics should adhere to what he teaches with religious submission of will and intellect. Obedience to teachings of the magisterium is, in the final analysis, far more important to the Church’s mission than ongoing support for the death penalty.

***

Photo credit: kalhh (8-11-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay License]

***

Pro and Con Exchanges on Capital Punishment

Last updated on: August 5, 2018 at 11:00 am By Dave Armstrong

[from Catholic philosopher Edward Feser’s blog, but not with him. Three people (different colors below) kept asking me questions, and so I kept answering, as apologists are wont to do. Again, I’m still a green rookie as a total anti-, but here goes: ]

*****

I just don’t get where Armstrong is coming from, regarding his position on capital punishment. He says he agrees it would be troublesome to “cross the line” and say death penalty is always and in any situation immoral and unacceptable. But then how doesn’t he also accept that it would be troublesome to think the Church could do such a troublesome thing? I understand these are not exactly the same thing, but they are very similar nonetheless, and if we are troubled by the suggestion that capital punishment is an intrinsic evil, we should probably be troubled by the idea that the Church could declare such a view to be true.

Feser and Bessette have argued that we can still have the death penalty in practice even today. But that’s not their main point at all; it’s actually just their additional, more ambitious view. Their main point is actually showing how the death penalty cannot be an intrinsic evil that is always unacceptable. Whether or not we agree with the DP in practice for prudential or some humanitarian reasons, it is a far more ambitious claim to say the death penalty can never be justified in any situation. 50 years ago there wouldn’t even have been such a debate in the church, the idea is nonsense. I find it sad how so many catholics are taking up this radical anti-death penalty view, and seem unable to understand the gist of the debate.

I agree (and so does Dr. Fastiggi) that it is not intrinsically immoral. We also both don’t believe it’ll be promulgated as such. If it is (as so many seem to be afraid of), I’ll cross that bridge when I get to it.

So, if you hold (and if Fastiggi holds) that the death penalty is not intrinsically wrong, then is the disagreement merely one concerning the prudence of its application today? If so, then I’m not sure what the fuss has been about.

Largely, yes. It is believed that the death penalty is contrary to the gospel and Christian charity and witness to a pro-life worldview, and a maximum opportunity for the criminal to repent, to execute them, when society has other ways to protect itself from them without doing that.

If the death penalty is not intrinsically evil and thus at least in in principle justified for certain crimes as a just penalty, then how can it be contrary to the gospel and charity? Are justice and charity at odds with each other? Is the gospel opposed to justice?

Because it’s contrary to charity to kill someone if we don’t have to for the sake of society. Justice is served by their incarceration, and mercy and charity are served by sparing their life and giving them time to ponder and repent.

You say that you, and Dr Fastiggi (contra to his public remarks), do not believe that capital punishment is malum in se.

That’s correct. To my knowledge, Bob has not said otherwise.

However, you then say that the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel”. If the death penalty is “contrary to the Gospel”, then how is it not fundamentally contradictory to the divine and natural law?

I thought I gave a pretty decent reply to that two comments of mine above.

If it is fundamentally contrary to the Gospel, why do great doctors of the Church and the Council Fathers of Trent (in the catechism produced by them) teach the opposite?

Because in those days it wasn’t as possible to protect society from evil men short of the death penalty, as has been made clear in the rationales provided by Pope St. John Paul II for nearly total abolition of the death penalty.

I simply do not see how one can maintain that the death penalty is not malum in se and yet it be “contrary to the Gospel”. It appears to be a contradiction in terms.

Not helping the poor, for example, is contrary to the gospel and commands of Jesus. That’s not intrinsically evil, I don’t think, as a sin of omission, but it’s not the “full gospel” either, is it? Polygamy is now considered contrary to the gospel (hence we all have one wife only). But in the past, God permitted it (e.g., the concubinage in the OT, including Abraham, David, and Solomon). If He permitted it, it can’t be intrinsically evil. Incest was permitted in the early days, for the sake of populating the earth. Now it isn’t.

In response to it being contrary to a “witness to a pro-life worldview”, are you saying that St Thomas Aquinas and St Alphonsus Liguori did not hold to a pro-life worldview?

No; different times, as I explained above, and as Pope St. John Paul II explains. I love St. Thomas. I put together an abridged Summa and used to have a web page devoted to him.

Further, are you saying that modern opponents of the death penalty, which tend to be pro-abortion once you get outside of the Catholic blogosphere, really witness to a pro-life worldview?

They don’t, because they are radically inconsistent, and espouse intrinsic evil. You can’t nail me here, either.

These same allies which you will find yourself with also tend to oppose life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, especially if it includes long episodes in solitary confinement (to protect prison staff). [They think] that amounts to torture.

That gets into true reform and rehabilitation and repentance, which is another complex issue. I’m all for it. It usually has to be Christian-based, to be effective.

***

(originally posted on Facebook on 12-6-17)

Photo credit: Burning of Jan Hus at the stake (1485), by Diebold Schilling the Older, Spiezer Chronik [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Dr. Fastiggi Replies to Dr. Feser on Capital Punishment

Last updated on: February 2, 2018 at 2:52 pm By Dave Armstrong

The debate among equally orthodox Catholics on the death penalty continues . . .

***

Dr. Robert Fastiggi has made a series of replies (in the combox), to Dr. Edward Feser’s article, “Capital punishment and the infallibility of the ordinary Magisterium” (Catholic World Report, 1-20-18). Dr. Feser (who seems to have much more time for this sort of thing than Dr. Fastiggi does) has already responded at length. I have collected Dr. Fastiggi’s comments here:

*****

I commend Prof Feser for his desire to defend his position, and I thank him for taking some of my points seriously even though he doesn’t agree with them. Obviously an article of the length he gives deserves a detailed response. Right now, I don’t have the time to do that, so I’ll make a few points. First, I should note that Feser cites Lumen Gentium, 12 in support of the universal agreement of the faithful on matters of faith and morals. He fails, though, to mention that this universal agreement “is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.” This last sentence underlines the role of the magisterium in determining whether a teaching is definitive and infallible or whether it isn’t.

Prof. Feser and his followers have every right to argue their case that the legitimacy of capital punishment in principle is an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium. It’s always helpful, though, for the magisterium itself to confirm that a teaching is infallible by means of the ordinary and universal magisterium—as St. John Paul II did in Evangelium Vitae with respect to the grave evil of direct abortion (n. 62) and euthanasia (n. 65).

Trying to determine which teachings are infallible by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium, however, is not any easy task. In his article, it would have been good for Feser to cite Lumen Gentium, 25, which notes that the ordinary and universal magisterium is infallible when the Catholic bishops “maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” This sets a very high standard, for it’s not so easy to verify whether the bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, have come to an agreement that one position (unam sententiam) on faith or morals must be definitively held.

I’ve been teaching Catholic ecclesiology at the university or seminary level for over 30 years, and I’ve learned to be very careful when giving examples of teachings that are infallible by virtue of the ordinary and universal magisterium. I try to choose examples in which there can be very little doubt for faithful Catholics. For example, the perpetual virginity of Mary has never been defined by either an ecumenical council or an ex cathedra papal pronouncement. But those who have challenged it have been condemned in no uncertain terms (see canon 3 of the Lateran Synod of 649 in Denz.-H, 503 and Paul IV’s 1555 constitution against the Unitarians in Denz.-H, 1880).

Moreover, the perpetual virginity of Mary is affirmed in the liturgy (e.g. the Roman Canon). Another example I give is the reality of angels and demons as real creatures of intellect and will and not mere abstractions. The 1215 Profession of Faith of Lateran IV affirms their real existence as does the liturgical life of the Church (how could the empty promises of an abstraction be rejected during the Rite of Baptism?). During the late 1960s and early 1970s, though, some Catholics began questioning the real existence of angels and demons. Bl. Paul VI reaffirmed the existence of angels in his 1968 Credo of the People of God and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed the existence of demons in its 1975 document, Christian Faith and Demonology.

When compared to dogmas such as the perpetual virginity or Mary or the reality of angels and demons, the dogmatic status of legitimacy of capital punishment comes across as far less certain. This is not to ignore the sources that Feser cites. Rather, it is a simple recognition that these sources do not reach the level of a definitive judgment of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

The magisterium itself is usually the best source for determining which teachings of the ordinary and universal magisterium are infallible and which are not. When subsequent popes show they are not bound by judgments of their predecessors, that’s a good indication that those judgments were not definitive. For example, Pope Innocent I in 405 alludes to Rom 13 is granting permission for the civil authorities of Toulouse to have recourse to judicial torture and capital punishment. Pope Nicholas I, however, in 866 states that such torture is not allowed by either divine or human law (Denz.-H., 648). So it’s clear that Nicholas I in 866 did not feel bound by what Innocent I taught in 405.

St. John Paul II likewise did not feel bound by prior magisterial teachings that seemed to affirm the legitimacy of the death penalty for reasons of retribution. Instead, in his 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, he limited any possible use of capital punishment to societal self-defense (n. 55). Therefore, he forbade recourse to the death penalty except in cases of absolute necessity “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society;” and he also noted that such cases today “are very rare, if not practical non-existent” (n. 56).

Professor Feser, in his book co-authored with Prof. Bessette, states that St. John Paul II’s position “is a mistake, and a serious one” (p. 197). This, though, means that since 1995 the magisterium has been habitually mistaken on a prudential judgment (and it’s really much more than prudential). Feser, therefore, contradicts the very passage from the CDF’s 1990 instruction, Donum Veritatis, that he cites: namely “It would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission” (n. 24). To suggest that the magisterium has been habitually mistaken for 23 years on the death penalty seems very problematical. Does not Feser believe that the Church’s magisterium has enjoyed divine assistance in the last 23 years with regard to capital punishment?

To my mind, it’s much more likely that Feser is mistaken than St. John Paul II and his successors. This is not a “cheap shot” as Feser claimed when I previously noted that his position stood in contradiction to that of Pope Francis. Since when is it a “cheap shot” to appeal to the authority of the Roman Pontiff over that of a private scholar? Much more can be said, but this will need to suffice for now. I think Feser’s arguments are convincing to those who already favor capital punishment. They are not convincing to me and many others. If the magisterium in the future declares capital punishment—even under certain conditions—to be intrinsically evil, I’ll abide by the magisterium’s judgment. This would be an indication that there was no prior definitive magisterial teaching on the subject. Feser could shout “error” all he wants, but his shouts could never match the authority of the Catholic magisterium.

***

I think it’s inaccurate to say that St. John Paul II’s teaching on captial punishment was only prudential. Both Aquinas (ST II-II, q. 47 a. 3 ad 1) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC, 1806) understand prudence as the virtue by which “we apply moral primciples to particular cases.” John Paul II and the CCC teach that non-lethal means of punishment are “more in conformity with the dignity of the human person” (EV, 56, CCC, 2267). This is a principle not a prudential judgment, and it supports the other principle articulated by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae [EV], 56, viz., that it is not licit (neque … licere) to impose the death penalty “except in cases of absolute necessity (nisi absoluta instante necessitate), namely when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.”

Now both EV, 56 and the CCC, 2267 do invoke prudential elements (e.g. “the concrete conditions of the common good”), but a twofold principle is laid out that is meant to inform any prudential judgment regarding the death penalty: 1) that non-lethal means of punishment better correspond to human dignity; and 2) that recourse to the death penalty is not licit except in cases of absolute necessity: namely, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. There might be legitimate debate about what would qualify as cases of absolute necessity, but those who favor the death penalty have the burden of proof to show that recourse to capital punishment is the only possible way of defending society.

Pope Francis has now added more reasons (derived from the Gospel) for rejecting the death penalty. We should, of course, respect tradition, but there are traditions that can be changed or developed and others that cannot. Just as the tradition accepting torture has now been superseded (cf. GS, 27, and the CCC, 2297)so now the tradition accepting capital punishment is being superseded. The fact that Pope Francis and the overwhelming majority of bishops now reject capital punishment is a sign that there never was a definitive magisterial tradition on the matter.

***

I’m very sorry, but I think the 2,000 year tradition is something of a myth. Before Pope Innocent I’s permission in 405 for public officials to use torture and capital punishment there was nothing handed down in prior tradition (as Innocent I himself states). Some of the patristic sources cited by Feser and Bessette do not really show support for capital punishment (not even in principle). The teaching against euthanasia is definitive, and has been confirmed as such. Church tradition in support of capital punishment was never definitive. This is why the last three popes have all called for the end of the practice.

***

I try to follow Scripture according to the mind of the Church. If the recent papal magisterium had not spoken out against capital punishment, we could have a good debate over the subject. I am only trying to follow the mind of the Church. Like Pope Francis, I think we should work for penal reform and better prison conditions. As for deterrence, many studies do not support your findings.

***

[after Dr. Feser’s latest reply] Thank you, Prof. Feser, for taking note of my comments. I tried to post some comments on your blogspot, but I’m not sure if they went through. In any case, I don’t have time to comment in depth right now. Perhaps in the future I’ll be able to write a more thorough review of your book. For now, I’ll say this. Even if one were to concede that capital punishment was not intrinsically evil in the past, that still doesn’t mean one can dissent from the present teaching of the papal magisterium on the subject. You seem to think that, unless capital punishment is declared intrinsically evil, then any teaching about it is only prudential. This, though does not follow.

To make prudential judgments there must be moral principles, and St. John Paul II in EV, 56 and the CCC, 2267 lay out such moral principles. The Church does not regard war as intrinsically evil, but she lays out very strict conditions for any possible engagement in war (e.g. CCC, 2309). War, therefore, can only be justified according to these strict conditions. With regard to the death penalty, I am aware of of all the scriptural and historical examples you give, but I don’t believe they set forth definitive principles for deciding if and when the death penalty may be used today. Because the present magisterial teaching on the death penalty is not contradicting any definitive, infallible teaching of the past, it should be adhered to with religious assent according to Lumen gentium, 25 and the CCC, 892. The magisterium need not declare that capital punishment is intrinsically evil to determine that it is against the Gospel to kill a human being without necessity, i.e. when a person’s ability to do further harm has been neutralized and this person retains human dignity in spite of prior crimes.

***

Photo credit: Image by kai Stachowiak [PublicDomainPictures.Net / CC0 Public Domain license]

***

Romans 13:4 & Capital Punishment (Contra Ed Feser)

Last updated on: December 7, 2017 at 3:23 pm By Dave Armstrong

See the previous related papers:

Capital Punishment: I’ve Changed My Mind

Genesis 9:6 & Capital Punishment (Contra Ed Feser)

***

[Dr. Edward Feser’s words will be in blue]

***

Romans 13:1-4 (RSV) Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] 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; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.

***

In their book, By Man Shall His Blood be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017), Dr Feser and his co-author Dr. Joseph M. Bessette assert:

Then there is Romans 13:1-4, traditionally understood as a straightforward affirmation of the right of the state to execute criminals . . . (p. 107)

Now, Romans 13 has traditionally and consistently been understood as putting forth moral principles concerning state power in general and capital punishment in particular . . . (p. 109)

My approach to Genesis 9:6 in my previous paper applies in the present case also: my meager goal once again is to show that there is at least some serious thinking among biblical scholars that Romans 13:4 does not necessarily directly refer to or sanction the death penalty. If in fact this is so, it would undermine the “legal” case that Dr. Feser establishes on the basis of it. In my first paper on the topic I cited at some length the interpretations of three scholars who critiqued Dr. Feser. I’ll briefly summarize some of their opinions. E. Christian Brugger wrote about the passage:

Following a common interpretation of biblical scholars, . . . it refers to the general policing authority of the Romans to enforce tax collection. In this case, the metaphor of the sword, a likely reference to the use of lethal force, does not refer to the state’s penal authority (and so a fortiori not to its right to inflict capital punishment), but to the sword’s use in policing, which does not necessitate intentional killing, but rather unintentional killing in the pursuit of rendering aggressors incapable of causing harm in the enforcement of the law.

David Bentley Hart observed:

The passage almost certainly says nothing about capital punishment at all. . . . When . . . Paul speaks of the power that “bears the sword” . . . the phrase almost certainly refers to . . . a word that usually meant a soldier but could also refer to a military policeman, civil guard, or taxation enforcement officer. . . . It is rather as if a modern writer were to say, “A policeman doesn’t carry a gun just for show (so, if you create disorder, do not be surprised if he uses it).” . . .

Dr. Feser, in his reply to Hart retorts:

[T]he most that Hart is entitled to say about the passage is that some biblical scholars, and modern ones at that, have proposed reinterpreting the passage as not referring to capital punishment. But this reinterpretation is by no means either universally accepted, or accepted with confidence by all who propose it.

Feser then proceeds to produce six such scholars who take his view, and concludes: “More examples could be given, but that much suffices to show that Hart gives a false impression of the state of modern Scriptural exegesis of this passage.” Fair enough. But by the same token we can, in turn, produce many biblical exegetes who contend for a contrary view as well. I will do so now. Again, my aim is simply to demonstrate that Dr. Feser’s “capital punishment” interpretation of Romans 13:4 (even though — I readily concede — it has a long, “mainstream” pedigree in Church history) is not the only possible one, from the standpoint of scholarly exegesis. And (the more I study the passage), it looks like it is not the most feasible, plausible, warranted interpretation, either.

1) Eerdmans Bible Commentary states:

Bear the sword: an allusion to the Roman ius gladii, by which a Roman citizen serving in the army could be condemned to death, has been seen (Barrett), but this is doubtful. Paul rather has a general statement in mind, that the state has power to quell resistance when civil order is in peril.

2) A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament:

Sword (macairan). Symbol of authority as to-day policemen carry clubs or pistols.

3) Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers:

It is clear from this passage that capital punishment is sanctioned by Scripture. At the same time its abolition is not excluded, as the abolition of slavery was not excluded, if the gradual development of Christian principle should seem to demand it. Whether or not capital punishment ought to be abolished, is a question for jurists, publicists, and statesmen. The theologian, as such, has no decision to give either way.

4) Expositor’s Greek Testament:

. . . to know that if an individual sets himself to subvert the moral order of the world, its representatives can proceed to extremities against him . . . is not to vindicate capital punishment as it exists in the law or practice of any given society. . . . it is the punitive ministry of the magistrate which is alone in view.

5) Christian Ethics: The Issues of Life and Death (edited by Larry Chouinard, David Fiensy, George F. Pickens, Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2003):

More recent lexical work has emphasized that: 1) the word for sword in Romans 13:4, macaira, denoted a short sword or dagger, thus unsuitable for beheading someone in execution. . . . 3) When macaira was used in official contexts it referred not to executions but to the police force. Thus, Paul is referring to the civil government’s power to force compliance in paying taxes. . . .

Romans 13:1-7 cannot bear the weight that proponents of capital punishment have put on it. Once again, one of the main supports for the Christian belief in the death penalty is weakened, if not destroyed, when we attend to the historical situation and the context. A text instructing Christians to pay their taxes can hardly be appropriated to defend maintenance of the death penalty. And if the two main props for capital punishment (Gen 9:6 and Rom 13:1-7) are removed, why would one want to advocate the death penalty any further? (p. 246)

6) Dictionary of Ethics, Theology and Society (Paul A. B. Clarke & Andrew Linzey, London: Routledge, 1996):

With regard to ‘the authority does not bear the sword in vain’ (Romans 13: 4) as a justification for capital punishment, the ‘sword’ of Romans 13: 4 is the symbol of judicial authority, but it was not the instrument used by the Romans to carry out capital sentences. (p. 103)

7) James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words of the Greek New Testament:

Machaira: means a short sword worn on the belt, in King James English we would say a dirk; in modern English, a dagger. This is not the instrument used for decapitation, the form of capital punishment by sword in Paul’s day. This word is used as a symbol or metaphor for the authority of the courts to inflict punishment. We know that such punishments could include fines, prison, flogging, etc.

Rhomphaia: means a saber, a long and broad cutlass. This is the instrument used for decapitation, the form of capital punishment by sword in Paul’s day.

8) Dale S. Recinella, The Biblical Truth about America’s Death Penalty (Lebanon, New Hampshire: Northeastern University Press, 2004):

Why would Paul use the word for dagger if he were talking about capital punishment? . . .

When we properly understand romans 13:4, based on the usage of the actual Greek words in the earliest scriptures, it is clear that the verse contains no mandate for capital punishment. It does support the power of judicial authority to impose punishment upon malefactors. (pp. 97-98)

9) Getting on Message: Challenging the Christian Right from the Heart of the Gospel (edited by Peter Laarman, Boston: Beacon Press, 2006):

Christian defenses of capital punishment have relied upon Romans 13 more than any other New Testament passage, arguing that Paul recognizes the state’s right to punish criminals, even with death. . . .

Nor is it clear the “sword” mentioned in Romans 13:4 refers to the executioner’s blade. It is more likely that the “sword” here refers to the state’s authority to use force to keep the peace, relying normally on police or soldiers and not on executioners. In this case Paul writes to discourage Christians from joining a tax rebellion . . . Most biblical scholars agree that Romans 13 does not offer an argument justifying capital punishment. (p. 120)

10) Douglas J. Moo, Encountering the Book of Romans: A Theological Survey (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2002):

[W]e cannot be absolutely sure that this is what the imagery conveys. Paul simply might be referring to the “police powers” of the state, the right of the state to enforce law and order. Some ancient writers refer to police as “sword-bearers.” The upshot is that Romans 13:4 probably cannot settle the matter one way or the other. I think it likely that it implies the right of rulers to execute criminals; but we cannot be sure. (p. 186)

11) The Leviathan’s Choice: Capital Punishment in the Twenty-first Century (edited by James Michael Martinez, William Donald Richardson, & D. Brandon Hornsby, Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002):

A team of well-known New Testament scholars in Germany wrote the authoritative study of this passage. They point out that Paul is not teaching about the death penalty. Paul is urging his readers to pay their taxes and not to participate in a rebellion against Nero’s new tax. An insurrection against taxes had recently occurred and had gotten Christians kicked out of Rome, including Priscilla and Aquilla. Another one was brewing. . . . Paul was urging Christians to make peace, pay Nero’s new tax, and not rebel. He was not arguing for the death penalty. (p. 131)

12) Michael J. Gorman, Apostle of the Crucified Lord (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004):

It is clear that the presenting issue at Rome that leads Paul to write these verses is taxation (13:6-7), and specifically the possibility of resistance by Roman believers to Roman taxation (13:2, 4). (p. 395)

***

Note: For additional extensive discussion on the overall issue, and especially on what Dr. Fastiggi and I think about it, see a combox on Dr. Feser’s blog, where I am very active.

***

Photo credit: Saint Paul, by Philippe de Champaigne (1602-1674) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Genesis 9:6 & Capital Punishment (Contra Ed Feser)

Last updated on: December 6, 2017 at 8:36 pm By Dave Armstrong

Preliminaries and Whether Genesis 9:6 is Proverbial Literature

My post, “Capital Punishment: I’ve Changed My Mind” (12-5-17) has generated vigorous discussion on Facebook and in its own combox. Dr. Feser showed up in the latter, last night. We had a very minor dispute about how many (and which) links of his I provided in my paper. I added further ones at his request. Then we had the following little exchange. His words will be in blue. Dr. Robert Fastiggi’s words will be in green. After that, I will make an argument in favor of Genesis 9:6 being proverbial, rather than a literal instance of primeval law related to capital punishment.

*****

A few comments: First, if you want to take Fastiggi’s side in his dispute with me, that’s fine, but before doing so you ought to be clear on what we are actually disagreeing about. What Fastiggi and I have been debating at Catholic World Report is, specifically, whether the Church could in the future teach that capital punishment is always and intrinsically immoral. I have argued that the Church cannot teach that — because such an extreme claim would contradict scripture and 2000 years of consistent teaching — and judging from what you say here in your combox, it seems you might agree with me about that. But Fastiggi seems to have been arguing at CWR that the Church could teach this. So I’m not clear exactly why you think it is Fastiggi, and not me, who is correct in the dispute between us.

If Fastiggi has said in the private conversations you seem to have had with him that he does not think that capital punishment is always and intrinsically wrong, then I am glad to hear that. but in that case he ought to make that clear in his public remarks, because he seems to be saying the opposite in his CWR articles.

Second, . . . [later resolved dispute about links that I won’t bore readers with]

Third, the scriptural claims from Brugger, Hart, McClamrock, and Fastiggi that you cite are claims I have replied to at length in the responses just referred to. I have shown why their arguments are no good. Simply saying “But Feser is a philosopher and Hart and Fastiggi are theologians” cuts no ice. What matters are the merits of the actual arguments they give and the actual arguments I give, and I have shown that their arguments are bad. But you won’t know that unless you actually bother to read what I wrote.

If you don’t have time or interest in doing so, fine. But in that case, you shouldn’t have written this blog post. For unless you are willing to address what both sides have said, you really have no business claiming that the critics are right and Joe Bessette and I are wrong.

Thanks for commenting. You probably don’t know much about me, but I have admired your work for a long time and massively linked to it (not just on this topic). I urged Mark Shea to have you on his show. I have no hostility towards you. . . .

I don’t have unlimited time, but I love to debate, so I am not the person to go after regarding a supposed fear on my part to do so, or to chide for not reading your side, etc. I’ve been reading both sides (but not absolutely everything, as I cover a lot of topics in my job as an apologist). I already stated that I’d like to see what you said about the exegesis, and would probably like to do some dialogue on that (knowing that you would). . . .

This paper was . . . a report about my change of mind. It was not intended to be an exhaustive study, as I said, let alone a full account of both sides of the current raging debate.

I just changed my mind two nights ago. I’m not in a place to exhaustively comment on all this stuff (don’t you think that would be rather presumptuous of me?), . . . I can do a fair job in exegetical discussion. Me being a Catholic apologist with a strong emphasis on Bible, and you being a philosopher: that might be a more or less fair debate. Neither one of us are professional exegetes. That does make some difference, don’t you agree?

It’s also absurd to say that I shouldn’t have written this blog post. It’s about my change of opinion. I don’t claim to have all knowledge on the topic. I restricted myself only to the exegetical arguments, and gave the ones the anti-death penalty folks gave, just so people could see that there are conceivable answers to your claims.

In our group discussion at my home on Saturday with Dr. Fastiggi (we’ve been friends for over ten years and he’s been to my house many times), my impression was that he does not think it is intrinsically evil. That’s not how he framed his entire presentation, and not how he convinced me, since I have held for years that it was not such (in contradistinction to abortion). I don’t believe he thinks the Church could proclaim it to be in the future, either.

He certainly doesn’t think that Pope Francis is teaching this now. In his second reply to you, he stated: “He has also taught that it is ‘per se contrary to the Gospel’ (Address of Oct. 11, 2017). He has not yet condemned capital punishment as intrinsically immoral, . . .” I suppose one could be concerned with the seemingly “pregnant” use of “yet” there. In the combox for this article, he reiterated the same thing twice:

His statement that capital punishment is “per se contrary to the Gospel” need not mean that it is intrinsically evil. Divorce, after all is contrary to the Gospel, but the Church tolerates civil divorce is some cases (see CCC 2383); and God also permitted divorce and remarriage in the Old Testament. Polygamy is contrary to the Gospel, but it likewise was tolerated in the OT, and St. Thomas Aquinas thought that polygamy was against the natural law in one way (with regard to marital fidelity) but not against it in another way (with regard to procreation; see ST Suppl. q. 65 a. 1).

In my article I made it clear that Pope Francis has not yet taught that the death penalty is intrinsically evil. He has, though, stated that it is against the Gospel.

If you think he believes that the Church could / might teach this in the future, what exactly did he write to give you that impression? If he did write something to that effect, it had to be using a synonym of “intrinsic” because I searched that word in his articles and I found what you see above.

I don’t find Fastiggi’s position clear at all. In my exchanges with him, I’ve always emphasized the specific point that the Church cannot teach that capital punishment is always and intrinsically wrong, and I’ve emphasized that she would be contradicting scripture, the Fathers, and all previous popes if she made such a radical reversal of teaching. And he consistently tries to challenge these arguments. He never says: “Yes, you’re correct that the Church couldn’t teach that, but what I disagree with you about this or that other thing.” Rather, his emphasis always seems to be on the claim that I have not shown that the Church couldn’t make such a radical change. And he consistently avoids addressing the question of how such a dramatic reversal of teaching could fail to damage the Church’s credibility — where the Church’s credibility, which rests on consistency, has always been far and away my main concern.

My guess is that he doesn’t want to commit himself right now to the thesis that capital punishment is always and intrinsically immoral, but also doesn’t want to come out and say that the Church couldn’t teach that. I suspect that he wants to leave wiggle room for that. But whether the Church could teach that — whether there really is any wiggle room here — is the main issue between us, so insofar as he persistently fails straightforwardly and frankly to take a stand on that, I find the exchange frustrating. I think he should frankly come out and take a clear stand on that, and then we could have a more fruitful exchange.

This is why I’m also a bit puzzled by why you think his position is strong, because it seems to me that he isn’t actually trying to argue for exactly the view you are taking. I think he’s trying to (re-)interpret scripture, and to minimize patristic and papal statements that are problematic for the “always and intrinsically wrong” position, so as to open a door for such a radical change, in case Pope Francis or some other pope ever wants to go there. And I gather that you would be less comfortable with such an extreme view.

So, I would urge caution in considering his arguments.

I wrote and asked him about this very question, so we’ll see what he says. As for me: I didn’t change all that much. I was already against capital punishment except for mass murderers and terrorists. He provided enough food for thought for me to be totally against it, for various reasons: some of which I discussed on my Facebook page today.

It does matter if teaching was definitive, magisterial, infallible or not. He says it wasn’t on this topic. If I understand you correctly, you were saying that it was. If he’s correct, contradiction or reversal would not be technically present in a scenario of non-magisterial teaching x being replaced by magisterial teaching y. The contradiction would only be if x was also magisterial.

As an analogy, Molinism and Thomism are both now allowed as interpretations of predestination (I’m a Molinist). Neither is infallibly proclaimed. The Church, after further development, could in the future possibly proclaim one or the other as infallible teaching. That wouldn’t be a contradiction, because neither is required and binding now. Either one can be held. But if one is eventually proclaimed as infallible and binding, then the other could not be held by a Catholic. Dollinger and the Old Catholics thought that papal infallibility was a radical reversal in 1870 (and he was a learned historian). But it was not.

So it comes down to classification of the teaching in the past and now. That’s Bob’s area of expertise as a systematic theologian, editor and translator of Denzinger, and also of a revised version of Ludwig Ott [Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma]. So I wouldn’t be quick at all to dismiss him when he talks about those topics (even if I disagreed with him).

This is my correspondence with Dr. Fastiggi last night:

I wanted to ask you specifically if your opinion is that the Church might in the future declare the death penalty intrinsically immoral (and/or if Pope Francis would). . . .

I explained to him [Dr. Feser] that you were definitely not saying that the Holy Father is teaching that now, and cited three of your comments in one of your articles and two comments underneath it. I also said that my impression (from Saturday) was that you were not teaching that it could or would likely be so proclaimed in the future. But I’m not sure, so I thought I’d ask you, and could let him know what you said, so that can be cleared up.

My understanding is that if the Church did teach such a thing in the future, the way it could be explained as non-contradictory to the past is to note (as you have) that past teaching was not definitive or magisterial. Would that be correct? My own hunch is that the Church would not do so in the first place. But these are very deep matters, so I don’t put much stock in my mere layman’s opinion about the future.

*

You are correct that I do not believe Pope Francis has explicitly taught that capital punishment is always and intrinsically wrong. Whether he will or should in the future is another matter. I doubt he’ll invoke ex cathedra authority to do so. More likely, he’ll continue to use his ordinary papal magisterium to explain why the death penalty as used today is inadmissable and contrary to the Gospel. I think the 6th paragraph in his March 20, 2015 letter explains what he thinks is inadmissable:

[paragraph 6: “In certain circumstances, when hostilities are underway, a measured reaction is necessary in order to prevent the aggressor from causing harm, and the need to neutralize the aggressor may result in his elimination; it is a case of legitimate defence (cf. Evangelium Vitae, n. 55). Nevertheless, the prerequisites of legitimate personal defence are not applicable in the social sphere without the risk of distortion. In fact, when the death penalty is applied, people are killed not for current acts of aggression, but for offences committed in the past. Moreover, it is applied to people whose capacity to cause harm is not current, but has already been neutralized, and who are deprived of their freedom.”]

Here he makes it clear that what he finds unacceptable is putting a person to death for a past crime when the person is no longer a threat and has lost his freedom This is very much in line with what St. John Paul II has already taught.

Because I don’t believe there is a definitive, infallible Church tradition affirming the legitimacy of capital punishment, it would be theoretically possible for Pope Francis or a future Pope to condemn it entirely in an ex cathedra matter. I suspect this won’t happen. I really don’t believe this is a matter upon which the Roman Pontiff should invoke his supreme apostolic authority. Instead I would favor ongoing strong papal and episcopal statements against the use of the death penalty as described in Pope Francis’s March 20, 2015 letter (which is in the AAS). Let’s see how things develop.

I agree all down the line. On 12-6-17 we corresponded again, in order to clarify continuing erroneous charges against Dr. Fastiggi’s positions, being made on Dr. Feser’s blog by commenters other than himself:

If I misrepresent you in any way, please correct me. They keep saying you believe capital punishment is intrinsically evil (one guy today charged you with public equivocation on that score), and I keep saying that neither you nor I believe that; nor do we believe it will likely be promulgated as such. But I’ve also noted, as you did, that it could theoretically happen, since past teaching was not infallible. Several of the pro-death penalty folks seem unable to grasp these basic distinctions of category. But they can be complicated at times. I hope I haven’t confused anything, myself. One of these guys (anonymous) wrote about you:

Also, I have to call out the notion that the dispute is a matter of prudence. Fastiggi’s public remarks has all the marks of an argument from justice, not an argument from prudence. As Fastiggi has made it very clear in his public work that he is objecting to the first point Feser and Bessette are making in their book, not the second. Denial of the second follows from denial of the first, and the refusal to affirm the first and enter into legitimate debate on the second is telling of what his position is. If he has claimed to you that his position is that Feser and Bessette are correct on the first but not the second, then he needs to state that publicly. Any impartial observer would take his position to be that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral, given the form and structure of his argumentation and exactly what in Feser’s arguments he is objecting to. As he doesn’t object to any of the prudential arguments and sociological points that appear later in the book, but to the arguments from natural law and moral theology from the first half of the book. The conclusion of the first half of the book is “Capital punishment is morally licit”, that is that it may be done without sin. Not that it must be done (pace the strawman of Hart).

I didn’t answer that particular one (too long and involved). I did reply, however, to the same person as follows:

Him: You say that you, and Dr Fastiggi (contra to his public remarks), do not believe that capital punishment is malum in se.

Me: That’s correct. To my knowledge, Bob has not said otherwise.

I think you’ve been fair to my position. I try to adhere to what the recent popes have taught about capital punishment. I think so many people think that if you don’t hold that capital punishment is intrinsically evil then any arguments against it are simply “prudential.” This does not follow as I tried to explain in my comment [underneath] Feser’s article:

*

Where has Pope Francis used the term intrinsically evil in reference to capital punishment? If you can’t produce such a reference then all your assertions are but speculations. Your claim that the Pope Francis is in doctrinal error is your opinion, which has only the weight of your opinion. . . .

*

Even if the death penalty is not condemned as “intrinsically evil,” the application of it today can be condemned as “cruel and unnecessary” (St. John Paul II, 1999) and “contrary to the Gospel” (Pope Francis, 2017). The Catechism tells us that the “traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor” (CCC, 2267). Unlike the condemnation of direct abortion which is “unchangeable” (CCC, 2271), the tradition of the Church on the remote possible use of the death penalty is not qualified in the Catechism as “unchangeable.” I am not persuaded by the arguments of Prof. Feser in defense of his position that the Church’s recognition of the death penalty’s legitimacy is “definitive.”

*

If time permits, I’ll try to explain this more in a subsequent posting. I really don’t believe Pope Francis needs to condemn capital punishment as “intrinsically evil” in order to condemn its application today in very strong terms. Prof. Feser seems to believe that if the Church accepts even the most remote possibility of the use of the death penalty, then any teaching against its use is only “prudential.” This is not true at all. In order to make prudential judgments there must be principles that guide these judgments. St. John Paul II (EV, 56) and the CCC, 2267 lay out these principles. Because of the dignity of the human person (a principle not a prudential judgment) the death penalty may solely be used if it is “the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” Feser and Bessette seem to reject these principles as “a mistake, and a serious one” (p. 197 of their book). They try to justify their rejection of what St. John Paul II and the CCC teach as disagreements only with a prudential judgment of the Magisterium.

*

This is where they show their lack of understanding of what is needed with respect to prudential judgments. There is a need for guiding principles. Unfortunately in their book they manifest disagreement with the Magisterium’s clearly taught “principles” that are meant to guide judgments regarding capital punishment. This is why their book is a departure from present magisterial teaching. To appeal to the authority of past popes is insufficient. Where in Catholic teaching is such an appeal justified? Many Feeneyites make similar appeals as well as Catholic ‘traditionalists” who reject Vatican II’s Dignitatis humanae. I don’t doubt the sincerity and good intentions of Prof. Feser and his followers, but I really think they need to manifest religious assent to the present teaching of the papal Magisterium (cf. Vatican II, LG, 25), which follows the “hermeneutic of continuity” with the teachings of Vatican II on the dignity of the human person.

*

In my one comment (below) I explain that I have never argued that capital punishment is intrinsically evil. I think, though, it’s acceptable for Catholics to argue that position. Fr. Ginno Concetti OFM argued for that position in an article published in the Jan. 23, 1977 issue of L’Osservatore Romano. According to Feser, Concetti’s position is heretical. This would mean that the Holy See gave permission for a heretical article to be published in L’OR.

*

I think Pope Francis is invoking strong Christian principles against the use of the death penalty today. I support his position. My own thoughts can be found here[underneath one of Dr. Feser’s articles]:

*

Prof. Feser seems to assume that I have committed myself to the position that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral and it has been so throughout history. But I have never taken that position, and I agree with Feser that it’s not clear whether Pope Francis has himself taken that position in his Oct. 11, 2017 address. My position is more modest. I simply argue that there is no definitive, infallible teaching of the Church in favor of the legitimacy of capital punishment. I also argue that recent papal teachings of the death penalty merit religious assent on the part of the faithful even though they have not been set forth as definitive or infallible.

*

With regard to the historical record of magisterial pronouncements on the death penalty, I agree with Fr. Anselm Günthör, OSB (1911–2015) who wrote, “the statements of the ecclesial Magisterium [on capital punishment] are occasional assertions and do not represent a fully definitive position; we must not undervalue them, but nor should we consider them to be unchangeable and perennially valid magisterial statements” (A. Gunthor, Chiamata e risposta: Una nuova teologia morale, Vol. III, Edizioni Paoline, Alta, 1979, pp. 557-558).

*

[see the rest of the long comment at the link]

*****

Now I shall turn my attention to the first of two key biblical passages that have been disputed, as regards the death penalty (and that I highlighted in my announcement of my change of opinion): Genesis 9:6 (RSV): “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

Dr. Feser and co-author Dr. Joseph Bessette state in their book that “Genesis 9:6 . . . sanctions the execution of murderers precisely in the name of the victim’s dignity as a creature made in God’s image“ (p. 10; italics in original, as throughout this paragraph). And again: “[I]t is absurd to deny that Genesis 9:5-6 affirms the legitimacy in principle of capital punishment . . .” (p. 101). On page 103 they refer to “the sanction in Genesis 9:6 of the death penalty for murder, which is presented as having application to the human race in general . . .” And on page 189: “. . . Genesis 9:6 sanctions capital punishment . . .” And on page 208: “Yet Genesis 9:6 teaches that man’s being made in the image of God is precisely a reason to support capital punishment rather than a reason to oppose it.” And further on page 293: “[T]he teaching of Genesis 9:6 is that . . . the death of the offender is the required, or at least presumptive punishment.” Lastly, on page 384 the authors speak of a “solemn affirmation in Genesis 9:6 of both human dignity and capital punishment . . .”

I need to note at the outset that my goals in discussing Genesis 9:6 are not extraordinarily ambitious at all. As I prepared for this reply today I quickly realized that these are very deep waters, and that I could not possibly commit to a full debate on the subject in all its aspects, as discussed at the greatest length by Dr. Feser and his opponents. It’s too vast of a topic, and would require, in my opinion, experts in several different field to adequately tackle it and deal with it in the depth that it deserves.

There are scriptural / exegetical, patristic, magisterial, moral theological, philosophical, law vs. grace, governmental, and dogmatic theological aspects to it: all distinct from each other, and each quite capable of generating necessarily very long discussions. In my first paper on the topic, I deliberately concentrated on the scriptural arguments, for that reason (and because I know the most about that area).

Thus, I candidly expressed to Dr. Feser on my blog last night: “I just changed my mind two nights ago. I’m not in a place to exhaustively comment on all this stuff (don’t you think that would be rather presumptuous of me?).” My participation, accordingly, will be necessarily limited and confined to very specific particulars.

But even in that limited sphere, I freely grant — as regards the present passage — that historic and current exegesis of Genesis 9:6 is indeed overwhelmingly in favor of a death penalty interpretation, as Dr. Feser observes. That’s not, of course, fatal to the anti-death penalty position, since there are other considerations of how Old Testament law applies in the new covenant, etc. In any event, my meager goal is to show that there is at least some serious thinking among biblical scholars that Genesis 9:6 is of a proverbial nature, which would undermine the “legal” case that Dr. Feser builds up from it.

Religion and the Death Penalty: A Call for Reckoning, edited by Erik Owens, John D. Carlson, and Eric P. Elshtain (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004), offers the chapter, “Biblical Perspectives on the Death Penalty,” by Michael L. Westmoreland-White and Glen H. Stassen. They write:

Most Christian retentionists rest their biblical case primarily on a single text, Genesis 9:6, which is structured as a chiasm (i.e., using an ABB’A’ in which the second half is a mirror image of he first half):

A “Whoever sheds the blood

B of a human

B’ by a human

A’ will his blood be shed.”

[footnote: “Authors’ translation to show the chiastic order. The passage is equally well translated ‘will’ or ‘shall.’ “]

Claus Westermann, who has written what is widely recognized as the most authoritative commentary on Genesis, explains that scholars do not agree whether Genesis 9:6 is a legal penalty, a prophetic admonition, or a proverb. [footnote: Genesis 1-11 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984), p. 467] (pp. 126-127)

I was able to access p. 467 of this book at the Amazon page, but, maddeningly, one can’t get to p. 468, so I couldn’t read Westermann’s complete commentary. But what can be accessed is intriguing:

The variations in the interpretation of the verse are striking. . . . J. Skinner: “possibly an ancient judicial formula which had become proverbial” . . . B. Jacob . . .: “It is not a formal legal pronouncement; a threat, a prophetic admonition.” S. McEvenue sees it quite differently: “The chiastic form and rhyming quality lean . . . toward proverb style” p. 70 (referring to E. Gerstenberger and W. Richter). He sees the clearest parallel in Mt 26:52: “. . . all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” . . . McEvenue comes to the conclusion that it has been demonstrated neither that the sentence 9:6a is very old, nor that it is a law . . . The embarrassment remains that the interpreters vary between judicial formula, proverb and prophetic admonition. . . .

The stylistic form . . . is not the equivalent of the apodictic law as such . . . the second half-verse: “by man shall his blood be poured out,” does not correspond to the style of apodictic law. The specification of the legal consequence is too general and imprecise; juridically one cannot even begin.”

But Feser and co-author Joseph Bessette conclude in their book that the argument for Genesis 9:6, holding that it is proverbial, has “no force” and that “the ‘proverbial’ reading of the passage is simply not true to the text” (p. 100). Why, then, according to Westermann, who is claimed to be the commentator par excellence for Genesis, are there “striking” differences in interpretation for this passage (causing scholarly “embarrassment”), with several exegetes holding it to be indeed proverbial? Are all these scholars out to sea without a clue?

Likewise, Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee (Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2003) observe:

Both Westermann in his commentary on Genesis and Hagner in his commentary on Matthew see Jesus as interpreting the meaning of Genesis 9:6 in Matthew 26:52. And Jesus clearly interprets it as a proverb . . . This fits the fact that nowhere in the Old Testament do we see an actual case where what seem like prescriptions of the death penalty for various offenses were carried out by an Israelite criminal law system. They actually function more like declarations of the great moral seriousness of these offenses. They do not function as criminal laws . . . (p. 202)

This line of thought is one possible and plausible way to look at Genesis 9:6 (as held by many respectable exegetes); that’s all I’m saying. I don’t think it can be so easily dismissed.

***

Dr. Fastiggi in one of his articles at CWR, quotes Pope Benedict XVI citing Genesis 9:6 in a similar way:

Pope Benedict XVI, however, in his 2012 Post-Synodal Exhortation, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, n. 26 cites Genesis 9:6 as evidence that God forbids the killing of even those who commit murder:

God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).

Dr. Feser in reply has a great deal to say about this, and I do admire his great zeal:

In particular, Fastiggi cites an exhortation in which Benedict stated: “God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).” Fastiggi comments that Benedict thereby “cites Genesis 9:6 as evidence that God forbids the killing of even those who commit murder.”

But this line of argument is problematic in several ways. First, in the exhortation in question, Pope Benedict was not addressing the subject of capital punishment. As the reader can easily verify by following the link above, the context in which he made the remark in question was a discussion of the idea of religious toleration. What the pope was saying was that the attempt to coerce others into adopting one’s own religious point of view sometimes results in violence and even killing, and that God does not approve of this. The pope was not even addressing the topic of criminal justice, the question of what sorts of punishments are appropriate, etc.

Now, it is standard methodology when interpreting papal texts to take context into account, and to be very cautious about extrapolating momentous implications about a particular subject from papal remarks made in passing in a discourse devoted to a completely different subject. But Fastiggi is blatantly violating this methodological principle in insinuating that Benedict’s remark implies some radical reinterpretation of Genesis 9:6 and, by implication, some revolutionary teaching vis-à-vis capital punishment.

Second, it is in any event highly misleading to imply, as Fastiggi does, that Benedict was “cit[ing] Genesis 9:6 as evidence that God forbids the killing of even those who commit murder.” For one thing, the pope does not pinpoint Genesis 9:6 specifically and then make an explicit comment about how to interpret it. Rather, he simply includes it in a string of Scriptural references that are implied to have some bearing – exactly what bearing, in the case of any of the individual Scriptural passages, is not specified – on God’s will vis-à-vis killing. Benedict never explicitly makes, concerning Genesis 9:6, the claim that Fastiggi attributes to him.

For another thing, it is quite ridiculous on its face to suggest that Genesis 9:6 teaches that “God forbids the killing of even those who commit murder.” This passage has for millennia consistently been understood by Catholic and Jewish exegetes to be approving of capital punishment. Even modern liberal exegetes who have tried to reinterpret it have only ever claimed that the passage is neutral about capital punishment, and they have had to strain credulity to go even that far (for reasons Joe Bessette and I explain in our book). To suggest, as Fastiggi does, that the passage is actually condemning capital punishment, is simply perverse. Quite frankly, it doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Nor is it remotely plausible to attribute such an interpretation to Pope Benedict XVI. As Joe Bessette and I note in our book, Cardinal Ratzinger (who went on to become Pope Benedict XVI) explicitly stated in 2004 that “it may still be permissible… to have recourse to capital punishment” and that “there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about… applying the death penalty.” He could not have said such things if he believed that Genesis 9:6 absolutely forbade the execution of murderers.

Fastiggi tries to downplay the significance of this 2004 statement, but he has no good grounds for doing so. The statement was an official memorandum from the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – the chief doctrinal officer of the Church – sent to a bishop, Cardinal McCarrick, for the purpose of clarifying the implications of Church teaching for how the faithful ought to form their consciences when deciding how to vote. How could this possibly not be relevant to determining what the Church intends for the faithful to believe?

I strongly disagree that this is out of context. This document was about “The Church in the Middle East” and has obvious connections with violence and death. That was precisely the time that ISIS was running rampant and slaughtering Christians. Thus there is a connection in subject matter. The pope refers to persecution to the death in section 8:

Yet this blessed land and its peoples have tragically experienced human upheavals. How many deaths have there been, how many lives ravaged by human blindness, how many occasions of fear and humiliation! It would seem that there is no end to the crime of Cain (cf. Gen 4:6-10 and 1 Jn 3:8-15) among the sons of Adam and Eve created in God’s image (cf. Gen 1:27). Adam’s transgression, reinforced by the sin of Cain, continues to produce thorns and thistles (cf. Gen 3:18) even today. How sad it is to see this blessed land suffer in its children who relentlessly tear one another to pieces and die!

“Persecution” in the region is referred to three times. Thus, the immediate context of religious freedom must be seen as part of the whole document; and it includes reference to the deprivation of such freedom, to worship “without endangering one’s life and personal freedom”. He refers to “deadly assaults” and “constraint” and “exploitation” and “violence leading to death.” Then in the very next sentence, he writes: “God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).” It’s quite in context with the entire document, and especially the paragraph leading up to it. Here it is:

26. Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public. It must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and personal freedom. Religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the person; it safeguards moral freedom and fosters mutual respect. Jews, with their long experience of often deadly assaults, know full well the benefits of religious freedom. For their part, Muslims share with Christians the conviction that no constraint in religious matters, much less the use of force, is permitted. Such constraint, which can take multiple and insidious forms on the personal and social, cultural, administrative and political levels, is contrary to God’s will. It gives rise to political and religious exploitation, discrimination and violence leading to death. God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13).

Dr. Feser claims that citing the final two sentences is making reference to a statement “made in passing in a discourse devoted to a completely different subject.” I respectfully submit that neither thing is true. It’s not a “passing statement” at all. It’s arguably a climactic conclusion of the entire paragraph. Nor is the topic “completely different.” Persecution is always front and center in any discussion of Christians in the Middle East in our time. Thus, Pope Benedict notes that God “forbids all killing, even [what is reasonably interpreted as capital punishment].” We’ve been discussing Genesis 9:6. Here are the other two passages he then cited (RSV):

Genesis 4:15-16 Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. [16] Then Cain went away from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

Exodus 20:13 You shall not kill.

In Genesis 4, God gives Cain a mark “lest any who came upon him should kill him.” So that’s a “don’t kill” passage, as is obviously, Exodus 20:13. Then we have Genesis 9:5-6 in the middle. If we follow Dr. Feser, it’s about killing in capital punishment, rather than not killing (in general). This is what brings about, with all due respect, an implausible interpretation, since Pope Benedict would be providing three biblical passages in support of God forbidding “all killing”, whose meaning are 1) don’t kill, 2) kill [capital punishment], and 3) don’t kill. Does that make sense?

Dr. Feser then notes that lots of other folks for four thousand years have interpreted Genesis 9:6 otherwise, but that’s ultimately irrelevant to the point at hand: how Pope Benedict is interpreting and using it in this passage.

Then he mentions Cardinal Ratzinger’s “Worthiness to receive Holy Communion”: the very document I refer to in my initial paper, by which I justified my former position. As the link notes, this was “a confidential letter sent by Cardinal Ratzinger to Cardinal Theodore McCarrick and Bishop Wilton Gregory.” That’s not magisterial at all. In fact, it was “leaked” to the press. Likewise, apologists like myself and Catholic theologians and historians have defended Pope Honorius against supposedly having infallibly promulgated heresy, by noting that the material in question was also of the nature of private correspondence. It’s not on a par at all with an Apostolic Exhortation from a pope, as was the case in the previous instance.

But he does express an opinion, and this cannot be dismissed (I agree). Cardinal Ratzinger says that being “at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment” is not sufficient to be denied Holy Communion. And he notes that “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty . . .” Whatever implications that has, they are not magisterial (a Cardinal’s opinions in a private letter can never be that), and light years away from having an infallible, binding status on Catholics.

But Dr. Feser neglects another factor. He contended that the topic of the Exhortation was religious toleration, not criminal justice or punishments, including the death penalty. Therefore, so he reasoned, the quote can be dismissed, and we can’t know the pope’s exact meaning anyway.

But what do we have here? It’s analogously the same scenario, but even more removed from the topic of capital punishment (if we are to consider context). “Worthiness to receive Holy Communion” is certainly as topically distant from capital punishment (if not more so) as “The Church in the Middle East”. Grounds for a Catholic being denied Holy Communion is a long ways indeed from what a Catholic ought to believe, as the highest ideal in the matter of whether we should put captive prisoners to death or not. In the second instance, he is referring (in a private letter, as a Cardinal) to what Catholics may and do believe. In the first (in an Apostolic Exhortation, as pope), to the sweeping, dramatic truth that “God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill.” This is talking about what God forbids, and is as straightforward as it can be.

In an address to Cardinals, published on 8 April 1991, Cardinal Ratzinger stated:

1. Man is created in the image and likeness of God (Gn 1:26); the second account of creation expresses the same idea, saying that man, taken from the dust of the earth, carries in himself the divine breath of life. Man is characterized by an immediacy with God that is proper to his being, man is capax Dei and because he lives under the personal protection of God, he is “sacred”: “If anyone sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has man been made” (Gn 9:6). This is an apodictic statement of divine right which does not permit exceptions: human life is untouchable because it is divine property.

Does this preclude the death penalty? Possibly, but it’s not certain. The problem of interpretation comes from asking the question: “which human life is untouchable?” Is the life of the murderer also untouchable? Or is he the exception to the rule because he took the “untouchable” life of another human being?

We know that Pope Benedict XVI was opposed to the death penalty, just as his predecessor was:

I express my hope that your deliberations will encourage the political and legislative initiatives being promoted in a growing number of countries to eliminate the death penalty and to continue the substantive progress made in conforming penal law both to the human dignity of prisoners and the effective maintenance of public order. (General Audience, 30 November 2011)

Together with the Synod members, I draw the attention of society’s leaders to the need to make every effort to eliminate the death penalty and to reform the penal system in a way that ensures respect for the prisoners’ human dignity. (Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Africae Munus, November 2011)

***

Photo credit: The Woman Taken in Adultery (1529), by Lorenzo Lotto (b. 1480) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Capital Punishment: I’ve Changed My Mind

Last updated on: November 22, 2021 at 2:10 pm By Dave Armstrong

My position for as long as I can remember has been against the death penalty, except in the case of mass murderers and terrorists. I was more generally in favor of it in the past (not sure how long ago that was). Thus, in more recent years I have been basically opposed to it, with only relatively rare and extraordinary exceptions to the “rule.”

As a result of wonderful group discussion with Dr. Robert Fastiggi (professor of systematic theology at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit), at my house last night, I have now changed my opinion to being totally against capital punishment.

I’ve expressed my past opinion in three separate articles on my blog, dated 2011, 2014, and 2017. I wrote on 10-14-11:

I agree (apart from rare exceptions) with the general papal opinion now, that the death penalty should not be carried out, for the sake of providing a witness to the sanctity of human life.

It’s not an absolute, though. The Church recognizes that states have the power of the sword (Romans 13:1-7; also the analogy to Just War Theory). I myself believe, accordingly, that the death penalty is quite justified (is not inherently and always wrong) and can and should still be carried out in the case of the most heinous crimes (mass murderers, terrorists, etc.), without any slightest hint of reasonable doubt whatever as to guilt, as determined by a jury trial. . . .

The death penalty is not an absolute contradiction to pro-life, either, because the two scenarios aren’t analogous. The state has no right to murder an innocent child. But in capital punishment, it is a question of application of criminal justice, since the state has the power of the sword and the right to coerce in enforcing its laws (police can sometimes shoot to kill). . . .

I completely reject the attempted failed disanalogy of (pro-) capital punishment vs. (anti-) abortion, while agreeing with the popes and the Mind of the Church in our time that execution should be almost non-existent.

On 1-9-14, I reiterated:

I’m all for the Church’s current mind of making the death penalty as rare as possible. The only exceptions I make are for terrorists and serial killers.

Of course, a death penalty should require profound eyewitness evidence and many other indisputable evidences. Cut-and-dried.

The Church has not denied states the prerogative to impose the death penalty.

I cited on my behalf: “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion — General Principles,” by Cardinal Ratzinger (2004), “Catholicism & Capital Punishment” (Avery Cardinal Dulles, First Things, April 2001), “Justice, Mercy, and Capital Punishment,” by the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., March 2005, USCCB), and “Capital Punishment: Drawing the Line Between Doctrine and Opinion”: (Jeff Mirus, Catholic Culture, 6-7-04).

Dr. Fastiggi has written two published articles recently about the issue:

“Capital Punishment and the Papal Magisterium: A Response to Dr. Edward Feser” (The Catholic World Report, 10-24-17)

“Is there really a definitive teaching of the Church on capital punishment? A second response to Prof. Edward Feser” (The Catholic World Report, 11-10-17)

Here are nine of orthodox Catholic philosopher Ed Feser’s writings on the death penalty, up till March 2017: one / two / three / four / five / six / seven / eight / nine. There have been many more since, as well as now a book on the topic. See his voluminous blog for more (and also more listed links below) .

See also Dr. Eduardo Echeverria’s article in favor of capital punishment: “Pope Francis, the Lérinian legacy of Vatican II, and capital punishment” (The Catholic World Report, 10-15-17) and four replies from Dr. Fastiggi in the combox (one / two / three / four).

Here are six more in-depth articles opposing capital punishment:

“Is this bloodshed really necessary? A book review by David McClamrock” (Today’s Catholic, 9-27-17)

“Capital Punishment Is Intrinsically Wrong: A Reply to Feser and Bessette” (E. Christian Brugger, Public Discourse, 10-22-17)

“Catholic Tradition, St. John Paul II, and the Death Penalty” (E. Christian Brugger, Public Discourse, 10-23-17)

“Christians & the Death Penalty” (David Bentley Hart [Greek Orthodox], Commonweal, 11-16-17)

“The Death Penalty and the Development of Doctrine” [+ Part 22] (Matthew Shadle, Catholic Moral Theology, 11-27-17)

I don’t intend to do a “complete” analysis of this complex issue at this time (the eight “anti” articles above plus Dr. Feser’s and Dr. Echeverria’s opposing opinions are quite sufficient for that purpose), but I’d like to highlight differences between Dr. Feser’s position on two key scriptural passages, and recent popes’ and/or St. Thomas Aquinas’ and/or [a consensus of] modern biblical exegetes’ interpretations. These were important in swaying my opinion, but not the only reasons. Another important influence on my decision was the fact that popes for almost a hundred years now have spoken out more and more against the death penalty. This expresses the “Mind of the Church” which is always developing in a certain direction, to the exclusion of others. The Bible and the development of doctrine (as readers of my writing are well aware by now) are two of my favorite fields of inquiry.

The above articles will be referred to as “Fastiggi 1 [or] 2”, “Brugger” (his first article of two parts), “Hart”, and “McClamrock”. All material below (except my bolded Scripture verses) is from these six articles (I won’t bother to indent them).

Genesis 4:15

St. John Paul II singles out Genesis 4:15 as a sign that even the life of a murderer is sacred and worthy of protection from death. As he writes in Evangelium Vitae, 9:

… God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, “put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him” (Gen 4:15). … Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. … As Saint Ambrose writes: “God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide.”

Contrary to St. John Paul II, Professors Feser and Joseph Bessette argue that Genesis 4:15 “was not meant to be a teaching against capital punishment” (By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed, p. 298). Genesis 4:15, however, shows God’s wish to preserve and protect the life of a murderer before “the creation of organized society” (cf. Howard J. Bromberg, “Pope John Paul II, Vatican II, and Capital Punishment” Ave Maria Law Review 6, no. 1 [2007]: 115). Just as Jesus pointed to God’s original affirmation of the indissolubility of marriage “from the beginning” (Mt 19:4–9), so St. John Paul II sees in Genesis 4:15 God’s original wish to preserve the life of even a murderer. (Fastiggi 2)

Genesis 9:6

But what about the command expressed in the book’s title, “By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed,” to which the authors refer in no fewer than 18 passages of the book? This was one of God’s commands to Noah and his family after the flood, recorded in Genesis 9:6: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.” Feser and Bessette maintain that “[t]he solemn affirmation in Genesis 9:6 of both human dignity and capital punishment alike is as relevant today as it was to earlier generations.” This is true as to human dignity, but false as to capital punishment. Here’s why.

The precepts of the Old Law were divided into “moral,” “judicial,” and “ceremonial” precepts (ST I-II, Q99). The moral precepts are still in force (Q100), but the judicial and ceremonial precepts are not (Q103, 104). The prescription of specific penalties for offenses in the Old Law, including the death penalty, was a function of the judicial precepts, not of the moral precepts (Q105). God’s command to Noah, recorded in Genesis 9:6, existed before the Old Law but was later included in the Law (cf. Q103), and is identical in substance to the corresponding precept of the Old Law in Exodus 21:12, “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death.” As the judicial precept of Exodus 21:12 is no longer in force, neither is that of Genesis 9:6, even though it was first instituted before the Law. (McClamrock)

As for Feser’s repeated appeals to Genesis 9:6 and Roman 13:4 in favor of the death penalty, he does not present any magisterial affirmations of his interpretation of these passages that qualify as definitive and infallible judgments. Moreover, Genesis 9:6 is a problematical passage to cite in favor of the State’s right to execute criminals because there was no State at that time in the biblical narrative. There was simply Noah and his family.

Feser ignores Pope Benedict XVI’s citation of Gen 9:6 against the killing of those who kill. He also ignores my citation of Pius XII who reminds us that “there are but few [Scriptural] texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church; nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, n. 47). These two citations, however, argue against Feser’s position on the conclusive scriptural evidence in favor of capital punishment’s legitimacy. Perhaps this is why he ignores them. (Fastiggi 1)

Pope Benedict XVI, however, in his 2012 Post-Synodal Exhortation, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, n. 26 cites Genesis 9:6 as evidence that God forbids the killing of even those who commit murder:

God wants life, not death. He forbids all killing, even of those who kill (cf. Gen 4:15-16; 9:5-6; Ex 20:13). (Fastiggi 2)

What about the very early passage in Genesis 9:6? Feser and Bessette argue that “it is absurd to deny that . . . [it is] intended precisely as a divine sanction of the penalty of death.” Let us look at the passage. In the ninth chapter of Genesis, God is blessing Noah, who has just departed the ark. The biblical author has God say:

“For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning; of every beast I will require it and of man; of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”

The teaching here pertains to the covenant with Noah, and so should be regarded as having permanent validity. The question is: What was the human author of that passage asserting to be God’s will and command? For whatever it was, that also was asserted by the Holy Spirit, and so cannot have been erroneous.

James Megivern argues that the passage should be classified under the genre of proverb, not strict divine-command moral instruction. (This does not imply, pace Feser and Bessette, that the passage is devoid of moral significance, only that it should not be taken as a timeless—or any—biblical warrant for state-sanctioned intentional killing.) The passage makes no reference to public authority or its prerogatives, or to state punishment. Nor does it distinguish between intentional and unintentional killing, or between blood vengeance and punishment. It also includes animals within the scope of those from whom God will require a reckoning. Moreover, if taken as a principle of action, verse 6 would require a strict lex talionis for homicide, which neither the Church, nor any credible Catholic or non-Catholic author—save Kant—has ever argued for. And God himself seems to contradict the pro-capital punishment reading when he spares the life of the first murderer and fratricide, Cain.

Reading Genesis 9:5-6 as a proverbial instruction is thus very plausible. The life of man is sacred because “man is made in God’s own image.” Shedding man’s blood is an offense against God whose image must be respected. God will require a reckoning from those who disregard the sacredness of human life (vs. 5). Then verse 6: “whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” Rendered as a strict prescriptive divine command, “shall be shed” means “ought to be shed” and “by man” implies that responsibility to carry out God’s bloody reckoning is delegated to man. But read as a proverbial instruction, “by man shall his blood be shed” means “this is what happens to murderers; their blood shall be shed by men.” In other words, “shall be” should be read descriptively, not prescriptively. Jesus says something very similar in the Garden: “All who take up the sword shall die (αποθανουνται) by the sword”; Matthew 26:52). The biblical author is stating a fearsome consequence of disregarding the sacredness of human life. (Brugger)

Romans 13:4 (“for he [governing authority] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. “)

Feser and Bessette believe that Romans 13:4 provides the locus classicus of the Christian doctrine on capital punishment. They criticize various episcopal statements on capital punishment for not citing this text or for misunderstanding it. They cite Pope Innocent I referring to Romans 13 in A.D. 405 on the death penalty, but his interpretation is not conclusive. Pius XII, in his Feb. 5, 1955 Address to the Italian Association of Catholic Jurists, cites Rom 13:4, but he does not see it as directly endorsing capital punishment. Instead, he says that this text and other sources “do not refer to the concrete contents of individual juridical prescriptions or rules of actions, but to the essential foundation itself of penal power and its immanent finality’ . . . (Fastiggi 2)

St. Paul doubtless believed the death penalty was legitimate. But did he teach it in Romans 13?

Before I reply, I need to respond to an accusation. Feser and Bessette charge me with denying “the divinely appointed power of the state.” If by this they mean I deny that the authority of the state—and all rightful authority—has been instituted by God to defend the community in accordance with God’s law, the charge is false. I state the opposite in my book (see page 69). In addition, I say St. Paul “clearly means to identify the origins of earthly authority with the purpose of God.” But does he mean “to propose a doctrine of the nature of state authority which includes the right of the state to execute malefactors?” I conclude that the propositions asserted in Romans 13 leave quite open the question of how far civil authority’s divinely instituted power extends. And I quite deny that St. Paul means to assert that it extends to intentional killing.

Following a common interpretation of biblical scholars, the passage does not affirm a universal principle about the state’s right to kill criminals. Since the verse “if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain” is in the wider context of an exhortation to Christians in Rome to be obedient to civil authority, especially by paying their taxes (see verse 6)—which some were disinclined to do because of their newfound “liberty” in Christ—these scholars argue that it refers to the general policing authority of the Romans to enforce tax collection. In this case, the metaphor of the sword, a likely reference to the use of lethal force, does not refer to the state’s penal authority (and so a fortiori not to its right to inflict capital punishment), but to the sword’s use in policing, which does not necessitate intentional killing, but rather unintentional killing in the pursuit of rendering aggressors incapable of causing harm in the enforcement of the law. (Brugger)

According to them, Paul’s words have been “traditionally understood as a straightforward affirmation of the right of the state to execute criminals.” This is false (despite the several misrepresentations of patristic sources they later produce). Even if it were true, however, it would constitute nothing more than an unfortunately prevalent error. The passage almost certainly says nothing about capital punishment at all. Feser and Bessette assume that when Paul writes that “[power] does not bear the sword in vain,” he is speaking of something like the Roman ius gladii, a provincial governor’s limited authority for pronouncing a death sentence.

But the Greek word usually translated as “sword” in this passage is μάχαιρα, which was the name for a large dagger or short sword generally carried at the waist in a μάχαιροδέτης, a leather belt. Now, it is true that such a blade could be used to put someone to death; according to Acts 12, that was the means by which Herod had James the brother of Jesus killed. And Paul probably did use the word as a vague term for any sword. But, as a figure for the state’s power to kill, one would properly speak of “τὸ ξίφος”—“the sword”—wielded by an executioner. Thus, for example, Philostratus, when speaking of a magistrate empowered to pronounce the death sentence, describes him as “a judge bearing the sword,” “δικαστοῦ τὸ ξίφος ἔχοντος (Vitae Sophistorum I.25.31).

Again, when Philostratus wants to indicate that Tigellinos possessed the same remit, he says that “Nero’s sword was under his power”: “ὑφ᾽ ᾧ τὸ ξίφος ἦν τοῦ Νέρωνος” (Vita Apollonii IV.42). When, by contrast, Paul speaks of the power that “bears the sword” (τὴν μάχαιραν φορεῖ), the phrase almost certainly refers to a μάχαιροφόρος—a word that usually meant a soldier but could also refer to a military policeman, civil guard, or taxation enforcement officer. This also explains the phrase “οὐ…εἰκῇ” (“not in vain”—or, better, “not as a vanity”). It is rather as if a modern writer were to say, “A policeman doesn’t carry a gun just for show (so, if you create disorder, do not be surprised if he uses it).” . . .

Whatever Paul was referring to, this passage has absolutely no prescriptive content when it comes to how Christians should govern society (a possibility that never even occurred to Paul). So, yes, God may have providentially used the powers ceded to the pagan authorities of the ancient world to discourage sin, but that has no bearing on the question of how Christians should conduct themselves in positions of authority. And no one in the early church imagined that it did. (Hart)

[see also the vigorous friendly discussion on this paper, on my Facebook page]

Addendum: Dr. Edward Feser in the combox complained that I hadn’t linked to his more current papers in reply to others that I linked to. We wrangled about it a bit (see below) and I asked him to provide the ones he wants me to link to. He gave me seven:

Reply to Hart. (“Hart’s review in Commonweal is so rhetorically over-the-top and dishonest that the effect is more comical than offensive.”) This was also a reply to a critique by Paul Griffiths.

Replies to Brugger & Tollefsen (one / two / three).

Reply to McClamrock.

Replies to Fastiggi (one / two).

Christopher Tollefsen also critiqued Feser twice (one / two). See Feser’s replies above.

That makes a total of sixteen links to Dr. Feser’s material, plus four more pro-death penalty articles, whereas I have eleven against the death penalty, for a 20-to-11 ratio fer vs. agin. That should put to rest any complaints of fairness as regards the links I provide. This article was in the nature of a piece explaining my change of mind; it was not an exhaustive survey of both sides of the present debate. As in stories of conversion to Catholicism, the emphasis is on newfound reasons, not older rationales.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!*

***

Photo credit: Electric chair: display at Texas Prison Museum, Huntsville, Texas [PublicDomainPictures.Net / CC0 public domain license]

***

John Calvin: Capital Punishment for “Heretics” (Anabaptists, Etc.)

Last updated on: November 22, 2021 at 3:43 pm By Dave Armstrong

. . . and Persecution of Catholics, Too

[public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * *

(6-1-09)

* * * * *

[all words below are Calvin’s own; blue-colored emphases are mine]

* * * * *

Servetus lately wrote to me, and coupled with his letter a long volume of his delirious fancies, with the Thrasonic boast, that I should see something astonishing and unheard of. He offers to come hither, if it be agreeable to me. But I am unwilling to pledge my word for his safety, for if he shall come, I shall never permit him to depart alive, provided my authority be of any avail. (Letter to Farel, 13 February 1546; in Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, editors, David Constable, translator, Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Volume 5: Letters, Part 2: 1545-1553; originally published in Philadelphia by Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1983, p. 33; cited also in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII, ch. 16, section 136: “The Servetus Literature”)

From what I am given to understand, Monseigneur, there are two kinds of rebels who have risen up against the King and the Estates of the Kingdom. (1) The one, a fantastical sort of persons, who, under color of the Gospel, would put all into confusion. (2) The others are persons who persist in the superstitions of the Roman Antichrist. Both alike deserve to be repressed by the sword which is committed to you, since they not only attack the King, but strive with God, who has placed him upon a royal throne, and has committed to you the protection as well of his person as of his majesty. But the chief point is, to endeavor, as much as possible, that those who have some savor of a liking for the doctrine of the Gospel, so as to hold fast, should receive it with such humility and godly fear, as to renounce self in order to serve God; for they ought seriously to consider that God would awaken them all, so that in good earnest they may profit far more from his word than they have ever yet done. These madmen, who would have the whole world turned back into a chaos of licentiousness, are hired by Satan to defame the Gospel, as if it bred nothing but revolt against princes, and all sorts of disorder in the world. Wherefore, all the faithful ought to be deeply grieved. The Papists, in endeavoring to maintain the corruptions and abominations of their Romish idol, shew themselves to be the open enemies of the grace of Jesus Christ, and of all his ordinances. That ought likewise to occasion great sickness at heart among all those who have a single drop of godly zeal. And therefore they ought every one of them earnestly to consider, that these are the rods of God for their correction. (Letter to the Protector [Duke] Somerset, Regent of England, 22 October 1548; in Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, editors, David Constable, translator, Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Volume 5: Letters, Part 2: 1545-1553; originally published in Philadelphia by Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1983, pp. 187-188)

I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed upon him; but I desire that the severity of the punishment may be mitigated. (Letter to Farel, 20 August 1553; in Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, editors, David Constable, translator, Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters: Volume 5: Letters, Part 2: 1545-1553; originally published in Philadelphia by Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1983, p. 417)

Whoever shall now contend that it is unjust to put heretics and blasphemers to death will knowingly and willingly incur their very guilt. This is not laid down on human authority; it is God who speaks and prescribes a perpetual rule for his Church. . . . Many people have accused me of such ferocious cruelty that I would like to kill again the man that I have destroyed. Not only am I indifferent to their comments, but I rejoice in the fact that they spit in my face. (Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus, written in 1554; in Philip Schaff, History of the Reformation, [New York, 1892], vol. 2, p. 791; cited in Stanford Rives, Did Calvin Murder Servetus?, Infinity, 2008, pp. 348-349)

Lest idle scoundrels should glory in the insane obstinacy of the man as in a martyrdom, there appeared in his death a beastly stupidity; whence it might be concluded that on the subject of religion he never was in earnest. When the sentence of death had been passed upon him he stood fixed: now as one astounded: now he sighed deeply: and now he howled like a maniac: and at length he just gained strength enough to bellow out after the Spanish manner — Mercy Mercy! (Defense of Orthodox Faith against the Prodigious Errors of the Spaniard Michael Servetus, written in 1554; cited in Stanford Rives, Did Calvin Murder Servetus?, Infinity, 2008, pp. 410-411)

This passage has been most improperly abused by the Anabaptists, and by others like them, to take from the Church the power of the sword. But it is easy to refute them; for since they approve of excommunication, which cuts off, at least for a time, the bad and reprobate, why may not godly magistrates, when necessity calls for it, use the sword against wicked men? They reply that, when the punishment is not capital, there is room allowed for repentance; as if the thief on the cross (Luke 23:42) did not find the means of salvation. I shall satisfy myself with replying, that Christ does not now speak of the office of pastors or of magistrates, but removes the offense which is apt to disturb weak minds, when they perceive that the Church is composed not only of the elect, but of the polluted dregs of society. (Harmony of the Gospels; commentary on Matthew 13:39 [parable of the wheat and the tares], written in 1555)

As that holy king was harassed by the Philistines and other foreign enemies with continual wars, while he was much more grievously afflicted by the malice and wickedness of some perfidious men amongst his own people, so I can say as to myself, that I have been assailed on all sides, and have scarcely been able to enjoy repose for a single moment, but have always had to sustain some conflict either from enemies without or within the Church. Satan has made many attempts to overthrow the fabric of this Church; and once it came to this, that I, altogether feeble and timorous as I am, was compelled to break and put a stop to his deadly assaults by putting my life in danger, and opposing my person to his blows. Afterwards, for the space of five years, when some wicked libertines were furnished with undue influence, and also some of the common people, corrupted by the allurements and perverse discourse of such persons, desired to obtain the liberty of doing whatever they pleased, without controls I was under the necessity of fighting without ceasing to defend and maintain the discipline of the Church. To these irreligious characters. and despisers of the heavenly doctrine, it was a matter of entire indifference, although the Church should sink into ruin, provided they obtained what they sought, — the power of acting just as they pleased. Many, too, harassed by poverty and hunger, and others impelled by insatiable ambition or avarice and a desire of dishonest gain, were become so frantic, that they chose rather, by throwing all things into confusion, to involve themselves and us in one common ruin, than to remain quiet by living peaceably and honestly. During the whole of this lengthened period, I think that there is scarcely any of the weapons which are forged in the workshop of Satan, which has not been employed by them in order to obtain their object. And at length matters had come to such a state, that an end could be put to their machinations in no other way than cutting them off by an ignominious death; which was indeed a painful and pitiable spectacle to me. They no doubt deserved the severest punishment, but I always rather desired that they might live in prosperity, and continue safe and untouched; which would have been the case had they not been altogether incorrigible, and obstinately refused to listen to wholesome admonition. (Preface to Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. 1, 22 July 1557)

Servetus . . . suffered the penalty due to his heresies, but was it by my will? Certainly his arrogance destroyed him not less than his impiety. And what crime was it of mine if our Council, at my exhortation, indeed, but in conformity with the opinion of several Churches, took vengeance on his execrable blasphemies? Let Baudouin abuse me as long as he will, provided that, by the judgment of Melanchthon, posterity owes me a debt of gratitude for having purged the Church of so pernicious a monster. (in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. VIII, ch. 16, section 136: “The Servetus Literature,” reply to Baudouin, 1562; Responsio ad Balduini Convicia, Opera, IX. 575: “Iustas quidem ille poenas dedit: sed an meo arbitrio? Certe arrogantia non minus quam impietas perdidit hominem. Sed quodnam meum crimen, si Senatus noster mea hortatu, ex plurium tamen ecclesiarum sententia, exsecrabiles blasphemias ultus est? Vituperet me sane hac in parte Franciscus Balduinus, modo Philippi Melanchthonis iudicio posteritas mihi gratitudinem debeat, quia tam exitiali monstro ecclesiam purgaverim. Senatum etiam nostrum, sub cuius ditione aliquando vixit, perstringat ingratus hospes: modo idem Philippus scripto publice edito testetur dignum esse exemplum quod imitentur omnes christiani principes.”)

Since the ministers of Satan deceive men by their plausible exterior, when they vaunt themselves to be the prophets of God, Moses had already admonished them, that all. teachers were not to be listened to indifferently, but that the true were to be distinguished from the false, and that, after judgment had, those should obtain credit who deserved it. He now subjoins the punishment of such as should creep in under the name of a prophet to draw away the people into rebellion. For he does not condemn to capital punishment those who may have spread false doctrine, only on account of some particular or trifling error, but those who are the authors of apostasy, and so who pluck up religion by the roots. . . .

It must then be remembered, that the crime of impiety would not otherwise merit punishment, unless the religion had not only been received by public consent and the suffrages of the people, but, being supported also by sure and indisputable proofs, should place its truth above the reach of doubt. Thus, whilst their severity is preposterous who defend superstitions with the sword, so also in a well constituted polity, profane men are by no means to be tolerated, by whom religion is subverted. Thus they are unable to endure, who desire to be at liberty to make disturbances with impunity; and therefore they call those sanguinary who teach that the errors by which religion is undermined and thence destroyed, should be restrained by public authority. But what will they gain by openly raving against God? God commands the false prophets to be put to death, who pluck up the foundations of religion, and are the authors and leaders of rebellion. Some scoundrel or other gainsays this, and sets himself against the author of life and death. What insolence is this! As to their denial that the truth of God stands in need of such support, it is very true; but what is the meaning of this madness, in imposing a law upon God, that He should not make use of the obedience of magistrates in this respect? And what avails it to question about the necessity of this, since so it pleases God? God might, indeed, do without the assistance of the sword in defending religion; but such is not His will. And what wonder if God should command magistrates to be the avengers of His glory, when He neither wills nor suffers that thefts, fornications, and drunkenness should be exempt from punishment. In minor offenses it shall not be lawful for the judge to hesitate; and when the worship of God and the whole of religion is violated, shall so great a crime be fostered by his dissimulation? Capital punishment shall be decreed against adulterers; but shall the despisers of God be permitted with impunity to adulterate the doctrines of salvation, and to draw away wretched souls from the faith? Pardon shall never be extended to poisoners, by whom the body alone is injured; and shall it be sport to deliver souls to eternal destruction? Finally, the magistracy, if its own authority be assailed, shall take severe vengeance upon that contempt; and shall it suffer the profanation of God’s holy name to be unavenged? What can be more monstrous! But it is superfluous to contend by argument, when God has once pronounced what is His will, for we must needs abide by His inviolable decree.

But it is questioned whether the law pertains to the kingdom of Christ, which is spiritual and distinct from all earthly dominion; and there are some men, not otherwise ill-disposed, to whom it appears that our condition under the Gospel is different from that of the ancient people under the law; not only because the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but because Christ was unwilling that the beginnings of His kingdom should be aided by the sword. But, when human judges consecrate their work to the promotion of Christ’s kingdom, I deny that on that account its nature is changed. For, although it was Christ’s will that His Gospel should be proclaimed by His disciples in opposition to the power of the whole world, and He exposed them armed with the Word alone like sheep amongst wolves, He did not impose on Himself an eternal law that He should never bring kings under His subjection, nor tame their violence, nor change them from being cruel persecutors into the patrons and guardians of His Church. . . .

Christ, indeed as He is meek, would also, I confess, have us to be imitators of His gentleness, but that does not prevent pious magistrates from providing for the tranquillity and safety of the Church by their defense of godliness; since to neglect this part of their duty, would be the greatest perfidy and cruelty. And assuredly nothing can be more base than, when we see wretched souls drawn away to eternal destruction by reason of the impunity conceded to impious, wicked, and perverse impostors, to count the salvation of those souls for nothing. But, if under this pretext the superstitious have dared to shed innocent blood, I reply that what God has once commanded must not be brought to nought on account of any abuse or corruption of men. For, if the cause alone abundantly distinguishes the martyrs of Christ from malefactors, though their punishment may be identical, so the Papal executioners will not bring it to pass by their unjust cruelty that the zeal of pious magistrates in punishing false and noxious teachers should be otherwise than pleasing to God. And this is admirably expressed in the words of Moses, when he reminds them that judgment must be passed according to the law of God. I have already said that this severity must not be extended to particular errors, but where impiety breaks forth even into rebellion. When it is added, “to thrust thee out of the way, which the Lord thy God commanded thee,” we gather from it that none are to be given over to punishment, but those who shall have been convicted by the plain word of God, lest men should judge them arbitrarily. Whence it also appears that zeal will err in hastily drawing the sword, unless a lawful examination shall have been previously instituted. (Harmony of the Law, Vol. 2, Commentary on Deuteronomy 13:5; written in 1563)

Addendum: Calvin’s Reaction to Henry VIII’s Murder of St. Thomas More

He attributed the execution of Thomas More to More’s hostility to Protestantism, his persecution of “good men by fire and sword,” and his vain desire for renown. “Do we need a more obvious example than this,” Calvin asked, “of the judgments by which God punishes the pride of the impious, unbounded desire for glory, and blasphemous boastings?” (cited in William Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait, Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 96; primary source information inaccessible in the Google Book Search version; presumably from around 1535, when More was killed)

See also the related paper: “Calvin the “Destroyer” of Servetus: James Swan Misses Forest for Trees” [8-24-17]

***

Stay in touch! Like Biblical Evidence for Catholicism on Facebook:

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism

Bible vs. Contraception: Onan’s Sin and Punishment

Last updated on: May 25, 2017 at 3:01 pm By Dave Armstrong

The number of births per thousand people in the United States. The blue segment represents the Baby Boomers. Image by “Nwbeeson.” [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

(3-7-14)

***

[note: this is an adult article about sexual morality, and contains somewhat graphic — though not vulgar — descriptions, due to the particular subject matter. On that basis, it may be considered “PG-13”]

* * * * *

The constant tradition of the Catholic Church has been to prohibit artificial contraception. In this we seem to be almost alone today. Yet, historically speaking, all Christian groups opposed contraception altogether until the Anglicans decided in 1930 to allow it for “hard cases” (how sadly familiar that reasoning sounds!).

It’s often thought that the Catholic reasoning behind the prohibition stems from a sort of “anti-sex” or “anti-pleasure” or prudish motivation. The Catholic Church supposedly doesn’t “like” sex, so it requires priests and nuns to be celibate, and seeks to take as much pleasure as possible out of the wondrous divine gift of sexuality. This is untrue, but suffice it for now to say that the relevant biblical arguments have been used by Protestants as well, and stand on their own.

This scriptural basis is perhaps seen most clearly in the passage concerning the sin of Onan (Genesis 38:9-10, RSV):

. . . when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. [10] And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD, and he slew him also.

The reasoning often used to overcome the force of the passage is to say that Onan was punished by God (with death) for disobeying the “levirate law,” whereby a brother of a dead husband was to take his sister-in-law as his wife and have children with her (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

But that can’t apply in this case (or any other) because the law allows the brother to refuse and recommends that the one who does so suffer only public humiliation. Thus we find in Deuteronomy 25:9 that a sister-in-law so refused should “spit in his face,” but there is no mention of any wrath from God , let alone the death penalty.

Moreover, the passage which teaches about the levirate law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10) is directly from God, as part of the covenant and the Law received by Moses on Mt. Sinai, and proclaimed to all of Israel (see Deuteronomy 5:1-5; 29:1, 12). God Himself did not say that the punishment for disobeying the levirate law was death (in the place where it would be expected if it were true).

If refusal alone was not grounds to be killed by God or by capital punishment issued by his fellows, then there must have been something in the way Onan refused which was the cause. This was the “withdrawal method,” a form of contraception (probably the one most used throughout history, because it requires no devices or potions). Therefore, Onan was killed for doing that, which in turn means (we can reasonably conclude!) that God didn’t approve of it.

The levirate law itself confirms the central point on which the moral objection to contraception is based: the evil of separating sex from procreation. It is precisely because the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, that the levirate law was present in the first place. If one married, they were to have sexual relations, which was (foremost) for the purpose of having children.

If a husband died with no children, it was so important to continue his name with offspring that God commanded the man’s brother to take his wife after he died. But Onan tried to separate sex from procreation. He wanted all the pleasure but not the responsibility of perpetuating his brother’s family. He possessed the “contraceptive mentality” which is rampant today, even (sadly) among otherwise traditional, committed Christians.

Fr. Brian Harrison wrote an excellent Internet article (“The Sin of Onan Revisited,” Nov. 1996), in which he examined the passage in great exegetical depth, with incorporation of pertinent cross-texting. He states:

If simple refusal to give legal offspring to his deceased brother were, according to Genesis 38, Onan’s only offence, it seems extremely unlikely that the text would have spelt out the crass physical details of his contraceptive act (cf. v. 9). The delicacy and modesty of devout ancient Hebrews in referring to morally upright sexual activity helps us to see this. As is well-known, Scripture always refers to licit (married) intercourse only in an oblique way: “going in to” one’s wife, (i.e., entering her tent or bedchamber, cf. vv. 8 and 9 in the Genesis text cited above, as well as Gen. 6:4; II Sam. 16:22; I Chron. 23:7) or “knowing” one’s spouse (e.g., Gen. 4:17; Luke 1:34). When the language becomes somewhat more explicit – “lying with” someone, or “uncovering [his/her] nakedness” – the reference is without exception to sinful, shameful sexual acts. And apart from the verse we are considering, the Bible’s only fully explicit mention of a genital act (the voluntary emission of seed) is in a prophetical and allegorical context wherein Israel’s infidelity to Yahweh is being denounced scathingly in terms of the shameless lust of a harlot (Ez. 23:20). . . .

The evil of the contraceptive act stems from its willful, unnatural separation of what God intended to be together. It violates natural law. Onan tried the “middle way” (and the “modern way”) of having sex but willfully separating procreation from it. This was the sin, and it’s why God killed him.

Obviously, God is not immediately punishing or judging in this fashion today (or if so, only in the very rarest of cases), but the point of the Old Testament was to make clear what was right and wrong, and to punish evil swiftly and decisively. Therefore, we learn from this passage that contraception is quite gravely sinful and forbidden; and this general principle of morality didn’t change with the arrival of the new covenant and Christianity.

* * * * *

Defense of Christian Apologetics & Epistemology

Last updated on: June 18, 2025 at 10:19 am By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

This occurred on a public Facebook page of a Facebook friend of mine. The words of my opponent will be in blue.

*****

The inherent problem of apologetics [is that] it has no room for real conversation to exist on theology. Apologetics is the conclusion being presented as proof of the hypothesis, and the conversation ends there. Theology allows for criticism, highlights and disagreements. It allows for not two paths but a multitude of paths for discussion.

The root cause is apologetics. You got people on two sides hellbent [on] arguing [about] something and then turning arguments into personal attacks of characters. As long [as] people are only willing to engage the conversation [on an] apologetics [level] this will continue to happen.

If we have nothing that we accept as true, full stop, that we then go out and defend, how do we apply Jude 3 (“contend earnestly for the faith”) and 1 Peter 3:15 (“stand ready to make a defense”)? There is this thing in the Bible called “the faith” and Jesus and Paul casually assume that there is one “truth” and “tradition” and “message” etc. etc. that exists “out there” to be adhered to and defended, which is so clear that we are to separate from those who continually violate it.

You act as if Christians don’t have an existing belief-system and must always be uncertain (this is an outlook that I have called “the quest for uncertainty”).

Thus, the problem isn’t apologetics, which is a biblical command, but rather, those who do it poorly (without love and/or knowledge; confusing it with a stupid quarrel or an arrogant chest-puffing exercise). You throw the baby out with the bath water. It isn’t like people don’t vehemently disagree on theology, too, and often with rancor (see Protestantism and Orthodoxy), so it’s a false dichotomy, too.
*

You say that with apologetics “the conversation ends.” It never has to. As an apologist, myself, I always want to have conversation and discussion (because that is how truth is often arrived at), and I do it without bitterness and personal attacks. The problem is that when there is any disagreement, folks only rarely want to continue on with a normal conversation. It takes two. The reluctance to converse is almost never on my end. The only time I refuse to engage is when it is absolutely clear that a person doesn’t have the spirit of dialogue and open-mindedness that goes with it. It becomes evident very quickly, if this is absent (especially in proportion to how experienced one is at dialogue and debate).

Truth is not dying on the often exaggerated and reinterpreted narratives that apologetics uses to consequentially present historical and theological points in a system of confession that reflects presupposed beliefs rather than presenting the historical and theological points in contextual presentation and allowing them to drive the hermeneutics. Apologetics is, in the end, the argument of a person who believes [he] is right and who will not budge otherwise. It is the end of conversation and the end of the study of truth. Apologetics is, for a reason, the lower tier of philosophy, theology, and history, often being neither good at presenting truth nor at the study of the things it claims to defend. Disagreeing with theology is a real thing, and should be the issue it is when people turn it into a dichotomy dissection in which splits the idea that one side is fully right and clean and the other is wrong and filthy in their error.

So you don’t have a set group of Christian beliefs? Or are you an atheist or simply non-religious? If you have a set of Christian beliefs, then according to the Bible you are obliged to defend it and share it with others, in evangelism. And that is your problem. You can’t “diss” apologetics” within a Christian and biblical paradigm.
*

So it comes down to what you believe. As it is, you sound almost relativistic or only nominally Christian. I don’t know unless you tell me what you believe.

But you are just as vehement in an “anti-apologetics” view as you say we apologists are in our view. You make blanket statements and you seem quite sure of your views, which is scarcely indistinguishable from what you critique.
*

So in my humble opinion you have insufficiently thought through your own presuppositions. Jesus and Paul and the Church fathers and doctors of the Church all passionately engaged in apologetics, so, again, if you are a Christian, you can’t possibly be dead-set against it, as you are.

You also wrongly assume that apologists never change their minds. I was an apologist as a Protestant and massively changed my mind when I became a Catholic. If I am ever persuaded that Orthodoxy is the way to go, I will surely follow that path too. I’ve also changed my mind on big issues as a Catholic (e.g., capital punishment), just as I did on many issues as a Protestant apologist. So the key is to always be willing to follow truth wherever it leads. But in any event, there is such a thing as truth. We’re not here to endlessly speculate and never arrive at it.

*
Lastly, it’s not true that one has to demonize all opponents in dialogue. I don’t do that at all. I take the greatest pains not to do so and note that errors usually come from false premises obtained along the way and not from an evil will or bad faith. Accordingly, I’ve written about how individual atheists could very well be saved, per Romans 2.

You’re the one in effect demonizing a whole field (apologetics) by dismissing it as a “bad” thing. In doing so, you go after Jesus and Paul, etc., and that’s your problem if you are any sort of Christian. Once you tell me what you believe, it’ll become clearer why you feel led to go down this path.

[he then put up a “laughing” icon in “response]

See, this is why I can’t take y’all seriously. The jumping to non-fundamental conclusionism . . .

It’s why you don’t offer a serious critique, unless you further explain yourself and offer any sort of counter-argument to what I have said. We still have no idea what your belief-system is. Instead, you go right to immediately judging and dismissing (and now essentially laughing at; you put a laughing icon in “reply” to one of my posts) an entire group of human beings: Christians who rationally defend what they believe.

So far, you have shown zero interest in dialogue, and this is the high irony. You would rather preach and proselytize with your seemingly skeptical outlook. You condemn an alleged widespread attitude among apologists of being dogmatic and unwilling to dialogue. Far too many persons are that way; I agree, but not the whole group as a general description. At the same time, you exhibit precisely the same closed-minded spirit that you have just condemned.

I just got through writing that it’s usually the other guy unwilling to dialogue, and then you prove the validity of the generalization (based on long personal experience: 44 years, in fact) before our very eyes.

[he again put up a laughing icon in “reply’]

If you are serious about the issue, it is with apologetics, not apologists. Apologetics, as a normative practice, often creates a narrative of circular argument that relies on authority and, more often than not, an interpretation of it. Apologetics requires rejecting real evidence that shows changes in doctrines and dogmas, and employing any method to argue for an interpretation that avoids admitting any obvious bias. I find it a lower form of theology, history, philosophy, linguistics, and related disciplines.

I adhere to a quasi-apokatastasis system, since I believe everything that exists in creation exists within God and can never exist outside of God. A Christological cosmic narrative differs significantly from concepts of God and the universe as fully separate, with only the acts of God existing in God, not the essence, or just the manifestation of God’s existence operating in the universe. My dislike of the “I am right and you’re wrong” position of apologetics stems not from that, but from the clear textual evidence and archaeological findings regarding changes, reinterpretations, and frameworks. Religion is primarily an aspect of anthropomorphic human institutionalism, subject to change and adaptation like any other institution. I refuse to simply sit down and say otherwise or perform mental gymnastics to be “right” while others are “wrong” and therefore need to convert to be right. The sole sacrament of Christianity is a mystery that every Christian, and even many non-Christians, both have and attain, guiding the movement from the finite to the infinite. I do not need to tell everyone who is right to win arguments or prove my side true. I am always willing to exchange views with people, not to show who is right, but why we believe differently. If I wanted circular reasoning and wasting time, Islam is there to join or argue against never truly making a difference on reality.
*

I became a Catholic due to reading St. Cdl. Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, and development is my favorite theological topic. But it depends on what we mean by “development.” Newman is very precise as to his own meaning: it is development without losing the kernel or essence of a doctrine from beginning to end (an acorn and an oak tree are the same thing, on a continuum). All Christians who accept biblical inspiration also believe in progressive revelation. Doctrines have indeed changed. But we do deny that what we believe to be the true doctrines have changed in essence.
*

You criticize us for feeling certain about Catholic dogmas, while you sit there and by all appearances and perceptions feel absolutely (?) certain that your worldview that you are now describing (thank you!) is correct and ours — at least what you perceive to be ours — is wrong.
*

So you absolutely condemn absolute (as opposed to relative) views, and propose an absolute view as a replacement: all the while severely chastising any sort of dogma or certainty. This huge self-contradiction is discussed a lot by C. S. Lewis in his books and articles (e.g., “The Poison of Subjectivism”). You seem quite blissfully unaware of it, and that’s how it usually goes with folks who hold these sorts of views.
*

As to one of your many specific criticisms: I, as a professional apologist, do not rely on — and have never relied on — “circular argumentation” at all: nor does any apologist who is even remotely deserving of that title. So, for example, in my last officially published book from Catholic Answers, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible, you can see in the title alone, what my methodology is. I am taking things (secular fields of knowledge) outside of the Bible to offer evidence that it is historically trustworthy to a remarkable degree. I make it clear that I am not claiming that this proves biblical inspiration, but that it does offer a view that is *consistent* with that position.

In other words, if the Bible is indeed an inspired revelation, we would expect at a minimum for it to not contain obvious massive errors of fact and self-contradictions, because those things would be counter-evidences of inspiration and guidance from an omniscient God. And that is the purpose of another book of mine (I offer it for free, too): Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. This is literally an answer to actual atheist arguments to the effect that the Bible is ridiculously and relentlessly self-contradictory and nonsensical and anti-scientific. So I give them the respect of seriously considering their arguments, and offering a reply from one who thinks that they are all bum raps. Then my readers can make up their own minds. I give them the atheist argument and also the Christian reply, and may the best argument prevail!

That’s not circular, either. It’s applying knowledge of biblical literature and of logic and science and making an argument. Moreover, the Bible is very often critiqued by those who, ironically, usually know very little about either biblical literature (genres) or exegesis. I’ve found that this is almost invariably the case. Many of these atheists with whom I have dialogued were former fundamentalists and they continue to interpret in that same manner, as if the Bible is always to be interpreted with a wooden literalism.
*

I never was a fundamentalist. I was a nominal Methodist and then a practical atheist with a fascination for the occult. When I was ready to be a Christian at age 18 I applied reason to it, and all the more four years later when I started doing apologetics in a serious way. But none of what I do is circular reasoning. There are some apologists who at least partially fall into that (it’s my critique of a school called presuppositionalists, who tend to be Calvinists), but my basic category is evidentialist apologetics, which is a very different approach.

So now we may perhaps be starting to engage in an actual dialogue. One key to determining that is whether you put a laughing icon underneath my comment for the third straight time. If you do, I’m done with this exchange. If not, then it’s up to you to figure out if I’m sufficiently “serious” for you to spend time engaging in dialogue with. You’re the one who came onto this thread broad-brushing against apologetics and apologists. As one of those, myself, one might expect that I would respond. No one appreciates being massively misrepresented.
*

One can’t enter into true dialogue if he or she has utter disdain for the other person’s views or if (as I think is more the case with you) one exhibits a poor understanding in several ways of the view (or caricature of a view) that they are so passionately condemning.
*

I don’t know you personally, so I can’t speak to the specific arguments in your published work. My critique is directed at apologetics as a method—how it tends to function structurally—not at you as a person or professional.
*

The issue I often have with apologetics is how tightly it relies on axiomatic premises—“the Bible says,” “the Church teaches,” “this is the correct interpretation”—as foundations that shape all subsequent reasoning. These positions are often established beforehand and can’t be challenged from within the system, because doing so would undermine the whole structure. So the apologetic task isn’t really open inquiry; it’s more often the defense of a framework already set in place.

That’s different from how I approach things. If I hold a view that’s flawed or incomplete, I welcome the opportunity to reevaluate it through historical-critical analysis, archaeology, philosophy, or other lenses. My beliefs aren’t rooted in absolute certainty. Rather, I try to hold them as provisional conclusions based on what currently seems most likely, based on the data I’ve encountered. I don’t claim objectivity—I simply acknowledge where I stand after a process of study, experience, and reflection. And I remain open to being wrong.
*

So, to your concern that I’m being inconsistent—criticizing Catholic certainty while holding to my own worldview with conviction—I’d respond this way: I’m not against conviction. I’m against epistemic closure. The kind of certainty I’m critiquing is the kind that can’t allow itself to be questioned, not the kind that results from careful thought.
*

I understand that you distinguish between evidential and presuppositional apologetics—and that you place yourself firmly in the evidentialist camp. That’s fair. Still, I would argue that even evidential apologetics often operates with an interpretive lens that reinforces doctrinal conclusions rather than leaving them open to real revision. It may not be circular in the strict philosophical sense, but the framework often defaults back to confirming the initial theological commitment, which can have the same effect functionally.
*

As for tone—I want to acknowledge something you brought up. If my comments or reactions (including emojis) came off as dismissive or mocking, that wasn’t my intention. I’m here to engage ideas, not ridicule people. So I’ll leave that aside moving forward and stay focused on the substance.
*

Regarding the theological examples I raised, I’m not just pointing out errors for the sake of argument. Take the question of Jesus’ divinity: in a Catholic apologetic framework, the starting position is already fixed—Christ is fully divine, as revealed in the Gospels and affirmed by the early Church Fathers. The apologetic role is then to show how Scripture and tradition align with this, often by invoking later theological interpretations or selective patristic citations.

You can see this in the way apologetics handles topics like the Immaculate Conception (kecharitōmenē) or original sin in Romans 5. These arguments frequently rely on theological categories that developed centuries later and are read back into the earliest texts. My point is not that these conclusions are impossible—only that the method often precludes other viable readings from being taken seriously.
*

Other disciplines allow for a more complex picture. For example, exploring how John’s Logos parallels Philo, or how the Enochic and Metatron traditions influenced early Jewish mysticism, opens up richer possibilities for understanding the Christological claims in the New Testament. Likewise, noting the more subordinate tone in Ignatius or Polycarp’s writings allows us to ask whether high Christology was as immediate or universal as often claimed. These aren’t attacks on doctrine—they’re attempts to approach the material on its own terms before drawing conclusions.
*

I also think your invocation of Newman is fair, and you’re right that doctrine can develop in meaningful ways without abandoning its essence. There’s room to bring in McGrath’s framing of doctrine as both ontological and epistemological. My broader question, though, is whether any system—especially one rooted in institutional authority—can admit the possibility that councils or doctrinal formulations were mistaken without appealing to that same authority to justify or reframe it. That’s a hard circle to square epistemologically.
*

So again, this isn’t a personal attack. I respect your background and how you came to your views. My critique is aimed at the structure of apologetics itself. Even when it doesn’t appeal directly to authority, it still tends to carry a theological gravity that weighs all evidence toward a particular end. Whether we’re talking about Yahweh and Asherah, firstborn sacrifice, or redaction layers in the Pentateuch, the evidence gets filtered through a system that won’t entertain conclusions seen as incompatible with dogma.
*

Everyone has bias, myself included. The difference, I think, lies in whether we’re transparent about it—and whether our method allows room for uncertainty. That’s not relativism; it’s just acknowledging that religion, like all human expression, bears our fingerprints. It deserves reverence, yes, but also rigorous, open, and sometimes uncomfortable inquiry.
*

When you speak on biblical contradictions and bring up your point, I will say that’s another conversation, a different topic altogether. But I will give you a quick reply to that point for the record. You seem to be operating from a more classical theological model which reminds me frankly to be closer Augustine. A model where divine revelation is centrally embedded in the inspired text, interpreted through a tradition that’s believed to be guided and protected from error. That system makes sense internally, and it creates a framework where theological and historical tensions must be harmonized or explained within its boundaries.

*
In contrast, my epistemological position doesn’t begin with a single institution, canon, or tradition as the guarantor of truth. I personally hold to the idea that the canon is open and not closed and a big reason why I consider the book of Enoch or Jubilee as part of prayer use and to be read. I begin differently from you with the idea that truth exists, but that human beings can only access it partially, through provisional means—history, reason, experience, intuition, and the tools of interpretation we develop over time. Revelation, if it is real, doesn’t have to be locked inside a single text or tradition; it can emerge dynamically, even through contradiction, fragmentation, or silence. I see then an idea that there is divine revelation but it is found across faiths, time and traditions.
*

That means I don’t expect the Bible to be a uniform voice, nor do I defend that idea or need it. I expect it to reflect its human authorship, sometimes conflicting, sometimes brilliant, sometimes flawed. And I believe that’s where its value lies: not in being a perfect monolith, but in being a textured, unfolding conversation across time. I treat it as a sacred witness to humanity’s attempts to grapple with the divine—not as the final word, but as one profound chapter in a much larger dialogue between the human and the transcendent.

*
So when I speak about faith, I’m not speaking about certainty, but about trust in a process of seeking—one that accepts complexity, ambiguity, and growth. My worldview isn’t built on the need for unshakable foundations. It’s built on the conviction that even without perfect clarity, we are still capable of drawing near to what is meaningful, beautiful, and real.

*
In that sense, I’m not rejecting the idea of divine truth. I’m rejecting the idea that divine truth can only come pre-packaged in a fixed, error-free system. I believe it can also be discovered through tension, through error, and through the honest admission that we see in part and reason through mystery.
*

Thanks for your detailed reply. There are tons of things to discuss here and I’m not particularly up to that task at the moment — not in the scope and depth that it would require — and I don’t know if you are either. But at least we are dialoguing in a much more acceptable way than how we started.
*

I guess it all comes down to how one determines that they have arrived at a set of truths; in my case, Catholicism, and for 13 years prior to that, evangelical Christianity: both grounded in an infallible, inerrant Bible. And why do we believe that about the Bible? I have many reasons (none of them circular!), and a lot of them, and probably the most important ones to me, are included in my two books that I mentioned.
*

My epistemology is most grounded upon Cdl. Newman’s extraordinary work, A Grammar of Assent, which was the “heaviest” book I ever read, bar none. It’s very different from most Christian apologetics, in its notion of the illative sense and implicit reasoning and analogical argumentation. The philosopher Michael Polanyi later explored the same general line of thought, which is a fascinating one indeed.
*

I do apologetics because I believe that I have arrived at a set of truths and that I am called to proclaim and defend those, just as Jesus, Paul, and the Church fathers did. First I defended an infallible Bible and general Christianity. Then I came to be convinced that Catholicism is the fullness of Christian truth and way of life. St. Paul wasn’t on a perpetual quest for knowledge. He felt that he had received “the faith” through an existing tradition and was passing it on as best he knew how. In other words, he was an apologist, not a philosopher (though he was quite acquainted with philosophy, as we know from his sermon on Mars Hill in Athens).
*

To take just two example of yours, you mention “the question of Jesus’ divinity”: which you claim is “complex” and which developed for centuries. Well, it did highly develop, but it was all in one direction: strengthening the view that He was the incarnate God and the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.
*

But it’s already there in all essential aspects in the Bible. One of my first major apologetics projects was studying this in the Bible itself: back in 1982. And I discovered literally hundreds of evidences in the Bible that orthodox Christianity (in this case, all three “branches”) was exactly right: they only accepted and passed on what was already quite clear in the Bible. I will link to my two articles on that: consisting of 97% Bible passages. I merely organized them by subcategory:
*
Jesus is God: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (300 Biblical Proofs + Many Additional Related Cross-References) (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012 and 11-26-24]
*
Holy Trinity: Hundreds of Biblical Proofs (RSV edition) [1982; rev. 2012]
*

Then you mention “topics like the Immaculate Conception” and claim that its “arguments frequently rely on theological categories that developed centuries later and are read back into the earliest texts.”
*

Well, I have devised arguments from the relevant texts that are strictly biblical and exegetical and don’t smuggle anything in from later centuries or Catholic dogmatic pronouncements: particularly kecharitomene from Luke 1:28. These show, I think, that the essence of the Immaculate Conception (Mary’s sinlessness) is already contained in Luke 1:28 in conjunction with what Paul teaches about the nature of grace as the antithesis of sin. Thus to be “full of grace” is to be sinless per the angel Gabriel and Paul. The Immaculate Conception is a straightforward development from that (the key developments being preredemption and the extension of freedom from original sin as well as from actual sin.
*

There are several other related biblical analogies as well. I used only biblical texts in making that argument and relied upon (solely, as I recall) all non-Catholic lexicons and biblical linguists.
*

So all these points are disputable. You accept them; I do not, and I have explained briefly why I do not, at least for a few of the matters you brought up.

What I’d like to see (if you are willing) is how and why you have arrived at your present viewpoint; on what basis? I’m sure you’d agree with me that those kinds of questions of epistemology are incredibly complex. Perhaps you’d also agree with me when I say that I highly suspect that the more closely we look into why you feel “comfortable” (if not assured) in your set of beliefs, the more we would find that you have no more guarantee that you are right over against my more “classical” Catholic Christian view, than I have for claiming that my view is right. And you would accept many unproven or axiomatic premises along the way that you couldn’t compellingly defend from reason alone. Faith is faith; it ain’t philosophy. It can be backed up with reason, but it’s not identical to it. It’s something different and God-given.
*

Your outlook can be questioned at every point along the way just as mine can be. And that would be an extremely interesting discussion, in my opinion. All I do in the final analysis as an apologist goes back even beyond the Bible and Christianity, to Socrates, and the idea that we should relentlessly question our own premises. He was sort of the original Karl Popper, insofar as he sought to potentially falsify his own and others’ beliefs by scrutiny and reflection and dialogue.

That’s what I do as well, along with having a robust faith. As I already stated, if I am convinced of Orthodoxy at some future date, I will become Orthodox. That’s possible, but not likely, as I haven’t come even remotely close to doing so these past 35 years. I’ve heard the arguments; wrote a book about it, and remain confidently Catholic.
*

But a seeker of truth obviously must always acknowledge that parts of that overall truth may be discovered over time, usually surprisingly and shockingly, and he or she must always be willing to submit to it when that happens.
*

As I keep defending Catholicism, my faith and belief that it is the dullness of Christian truth keeps getting stronger and stronger. And it does because of the weakness of opposing positions when they truly interact with Catholic positions. You may be skeptical of that, but the proof’s in the pudding. Anyone can look over my work to see how I reasoned through things in my more than 5,000 articles and 56 books, and counting.
*

Most of the time, opposing apologists simply refuse to interact with what I consider the best arguments in favor of Catholicism or the Bible or larger Christianity. When that happens, it doesn’t exactly compel one to adopt the other view, since the proponent refuses to defend it.
*

[more to be added whenever this person “responds” further]

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Summary: I respond to a wholesale attack on Christian apologetics: of the sort that I have observed many times over 44 years. As one can see, this person was utterly unwilling to dialogue.

Luther, Melanchthon, & Lutherans: Death to Anabaptists!

Last updated on: June 11, 2025 at 2:21 pm By Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Martin Luther’s words will be in green; Philip Melanchthon’s in blue.

I’ve written and spoken in videos about this many times before:

Luther Favored the Death Penalty for Anabaptists [2-24-04]

Philip Melanchthon: Death for Denying the Real Presence (He Later Denied the Real Presence Himself) [5-23-06]

Lord Acton: Philip Melanchthon Persecuted Eucharistic Heretics [5-29-06]

Luther: Death Penalty for Anabaptists & 1525 Peasants’ Revolt (Critique of James Swan’s Misrepresentation on the Radio Show, Iron Sharpens Iron, with Chris Arnzen) [11-6-07]

Reply to Reformed Luther Apologist James Swan’s Request for Documentation of Executions of Anabaptists Sanctioned by Luther, in the 1530s [8-17-14]

Luther Favored Execution of Heretics (vs. Jordan Cooper) + Good & Bad Protestant & Catholic Apologetics & Historical Revisionism & “Twisting” [3-21-24]

James Swan Rationalizes Luther’s Intolerance Again [11-22-24]

Luther: Execute Frigid Wives; Torture & Burn Witches: Including Two Examples of Luther’s Espousal of Capital Punishment for Wrong or Aberrant Behavior Prior to 1530 [4-7-25]
*

VIDEO: Did Martin Luther Support the DEATH PENALTY for Heretics? [Lux Veritatis, 5-1-25]

Philip Melanchthon was Martin Luther’s best friend, associate, and successor as the leader of early Lutheranism. I ran across further related information in volume one of the two-volume set, which I have in hardcover in my own library, Toleration and the Reformation (Joseph Lecler, S.J., New York: Association Press, 1960, from the 1955 French edition; translated by T. L. Westow):

In 1530, in a letter to Myconius, Melanchthon did not hesitate to admit: ‘My opinion is that those who proclaim tenets that are frankly blasphemous, even if they are not rebels, should be done to death by the civil authority.’ [Epist. Melanchthon, lib. 5, n. 664; Corpus Reformatorum (C. R.), t. II, c. 18] Melanchthon’s case is a strange one, for this great humanist, whose conciliatory tendencies are common knowledge, was one of the most determined partisans of the death-penalty for the Anabaptists.

*

Although more than hesitant at first, Luther found himself carried along by his friend’s opinion. In this same year, 1530, in his exposition of Psalm 82 [83], he recalled. when speaking of the serious forms of heresy, the terrible penalties extracted by Jewish law against those who blaspheme in public. Then he went on:

*

But there are other heretics who dare teach matters contrary to the faith as it is clearly founded on the Scriptures and professed by all Christendom, such as the articles which children are taught in the Creed. Theses heretics presume to teach among other things that Christ is not God, but only man; that he is therefore only a prophet like any other, as the Turks and the Anabaptists maintain. Such people should not be tolerated, but punished as public blasphemers. . . . Moses lays down in his law that such blasphemers, and all false teachers, should be stoned. [Weimar Werke, t. XXXI, 1, pp. 208-209]

*

. . . The following year, 1531, he formally approved the document which the theologians of Wittenberg had sent to Johann Frederick, elector of Saxony, on the question: Should Anabaptists be punished by the sword? [C. R. , t. IV, cc. 737-740] Melanchthon, who had prepared it, observed first that there were certain heretics whose teaching was conducive to rebellion against the princes. They could therefore be treated as rebels:

*

One must . . . consider as blasphemy and sedition the fact that public preaching is condemned , , , and that the Church is rejected in every way. It is intolerable blasphemy . . . to teach that one should seek other ways of sanctification, without preaching and without a minister of the Church. This implies destruction of the Church and sedition against the clerical status. Such an attempt must be prevented and repressed like any other sedition. . . . The prince is indeed bound by the second commandment to protect and to support the public ministry, that is, the ecclesiastical status. We may therefore conclude that my gracious Lord is entitled to apply to them in good conscience the penalties laid down by the [Justinian] Code, law II (L. I, tit. 5). [C. R., t. IV, c. 739]

*

Melanchthon, therefore, clearly demands capital punishment, even for peaceful Anabaptists, and now Luther formally gave his placet to the document: Placet mini Martino Luthero. . . .

*

There still exists another contemporary document on the Anabaptists, drawn up by the Wittenberg theologians in 1536. Signed by Luther, Johann Bugenhagen, Melanchthon, and Kaspar Creutziger, it was written in reply to a question put by the Landgrave Philip of Hesse to these theologians: What should be done with the Anabaptists who had just been arrested? A few months before, several of those heretics had been executed in Jena on the advice of Melanchthon. The 1536 document bore the title: ‘Are Christian princes bound to repress the Anabaptists, an anti-Christian sect, by corporal punishment and even by the sword?’ [Werke, t. L, pp. 9 ff.] The reply is in the affirmative, even in the case of heretics whose teaching is not seditious, but only contrary to essential points of the faith:

*

Everyone is bound to prevent and repress blasphemy according to his status and function. By virtue of this commandment princes and civil authorities have the power and the duty to abolish unlawful cults, and to establish orthodox teaching and worship. The same commandment teaches them, moreover, to repress the public teaching of false doctrines and to punish the obdurate. Concerning this point the text of Leviticus applies (24:16): ‘he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, dying let him die.’ [Werke, t. L, p. 12] . . .

Princes must not only protect the goods and material existence of their subjects, but their most essential function is to promote the honour of God, to repress their blasphemy and idolatry. That is why in the Old Testament the kings and not only the Jewish kings, but also kings converted from paganism, had the false prophets , together with the idolaters, put to death. Such examples apply to the function of princes, as St. Paul also teaches: ‘The law is good, for the chastisement of the blasphemers’ [cf. 1 Tim. 1:8-9]. . . . It is clear that the public authority is bound to repress blasphemy, false doctrine and heresy, and to inflict corporal punishment on those that support such things. [Werke, t. L, p. 13] [Lecler, Vol. 1, 161-163]

***

Summary: Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, and his successor, Philip Melanchthon, & other early Lutheran leaders, advocated the death penalty for even peaceful Anabaptists.