On that day, the Holy See published a rescript, approved in May and signed on 1 August, which rewrote paragraph 2267 of the Catechism. The 1997 text, drafted under John Paul II — who was not precisely an enthusiast of the gallows — admitted the death penalty only if it were «the only possible way to effectively defend… human lives», adding that such cases were already extremely rare, perhaps non-existent. The new text teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty «is inadmissible, because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person», and commits the Church to its universal abolition. As its sole source, the footnote refers to a speech by Francis himself, from October 2017. The Catechism citing the Pope who corrects it by citing itself: Tradition as a self-portrait.
It is worth recalling against what this is written. In 1208, Innocent III imposed on the Waldensians who wished to be reconciled with Rome a profession of faith declaring that secular authority «can exercise the judgment of blood without mortal sin»; the Denzinger archives it as 795, for those who care to verify. The Roman Catechism of St Pius V taught that the execution of a criminal by legitimate authority, far from violating the fifth commandment, was an eminent act of obedience to it. Pius XII — a pope with a telephone, radio, and microfilm, not a Carolingian bishop — explained in 1952, before a congress on histopathology of the nervous system, that the condemned person, by his crime, has forfeited the right to life, the deprivation of which is then reserved to public authority; the neurologists, one must assume, took note. And in 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger told the American bishops that on abortion and euthanasia, there can be no «legitimate diversity of opinions» among Catholics, but on war and the death penalty, there can be. Eight centuries, one single line. The light of the Gospel, it seems, took all that time to reach the desk lamp.
What is remarkable about the new paragraph 2267 is not only that it contradicts that line: it contradicts itself, and with a precision that almost makes one reluctant to spoil it. Its premises are three, all circumstantial: awareness of the dignity of the accused has grown, the state’s understanding of punishment has changed, more effective prisons exist. Its conclusion, however, is essential: the death penalty attacks the dignity of the person. Premises of a sociologist, conclusion of a metaphysician; the syllogism limps on its most painful leg. For if human dignity makes execution inadmissible, it made it inadmissible in 1208 — dignity does not improve with prison architecture — and then the Church taught error for centuries and moreover demanded it as the price of orthodoxy from the Waldensians. And if what has changed are the circumstances, then «inadmissible» means today «ill-advised», and to say that, one does not revise a catechism: a press conference will suffice.
To the dilemma — or yesterday’s error or today’s misunderstanding, tertium non datur — the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith responded with a letter from Cardinal Ladaria certifying that the new wording is an authentic development that «is not in contradiction with the previous teachings of the Magisterium». One thought contradictions were detected; one did not know they could be resolved par décret. Roma locuta, logica finita. And the letter, with a candour one appreciates, cites in support, footnote 12, St Vincent of Lérins’ Commonitorium, chapter twenty-three: precisely the chapter where the rule of legitimate development is stipulated, in eodem sensu eademque sententia — growth in the same sense and with the same meaning; profectus, not permutatio. Citing the judge who condemns you has, at least, procedural merit. For Lerinian rule is clear: dogma grows like a child, who becomes an adult without becoming his own negation. Newman listed as the first mark of authentic development the preservation of type: the acorn develops into an oak; if it develops into a rabbit, we do not call it development, we call it something else. A «yes» that matures into a «no» has not matured. It has died, and something different has taken its place.
There remains the refuge of the conciliators: «inadmissible» would not be a technical term, the text does not say «intrinsically evil», the liceity in principle would remain intact, only that it is unspeakable. It is a dignified escape, and it lasts exactly as long as it takes to read the footnote. The 2017 speech that the new paragraph cites as its sole source states that the death penalty is an inhumane measure whatever the circumstance, and that it is «in itself contrary to the Gospel». In itself. Per se. The footnote: that basement where documents store what the text does not dare say in the drawing room. That the same speech hastens to deny any contradiction with the past no longer surprises anyone: at this point, denying contradiction has become part of the genre.
It will be said that I exaggerate, that no one here is lying. Granted; and there lies the gravity. For contradiction does not require a liar: it suffices that one of the two propositions be false. The liar, at least, knows the truth. A Church that had solemnly taught error for centuries — or that teaches it now — would not be a Church of liars, but something worse: a teacher without credibility. And credibility is not lost in instalments. If ordinary and universal magisterium could have been so wrong for so long on such a grave matter, what exactly remains guaranteed? Four ex cathedra definitions and good evening? Whoever needs that answer for other cases — each may think of which — has found in the death penalty the perfect lever: no one will take to the streets to defend the gallows, and in the meantime the precedent is established that a «yes» of centuries can become a «no» by rescript. The method is the message.
The White Queen of Lewis Carroll boasted of having believed six impossible things before breakfast; it was a matter of practice, she explained to Alice. The Catholic after 2018 is asked for a more modest exercise: only two — that the Church was right then and is right now — with the inconvenience that both cannot be true. To call that development is the euphemism; Orwell had a less kind word for it. One, who still aspires to distinguish himself from a plant, remains with Aristotle; and thus with the Church of always, which never asked anyone to believe p and not-p at the same time. The other, the recent one, will soon find someone to water it.
