Mark Shea’s misrepresentation of Catholic teaching on capital punishment

Among the outrageous calumnies that Mark Shea has flung at my co-author Joe Bessette and me is the accusation that we are “dissenters” from binding Catholic doctrine, on all fours with Catholics who dissent from Church teaching on abortion and euthanasia.  He mocks Catholics who oppose the latter but not capital punishment, accusing them of inconsistency and bad faith.  In his unhinged recent Facebook rant he repeatedly asserts that Joe and I “reject the teaching of the Magisterium,” that we “argue that the Magisterium is wrong,” that we are in the business of “fighting,” “ignoring,” “battling,” and “rebutting” the Magisterium.

 
For Catholics like Joe and I who are in fact intent precisely on upholding and following the binding teaching of the Magisterium – which, as we are well aware, includes more than just those doctrines taught infallibly – these are fighting words.  They are also inconsistent with what the Church actually teaches about the duty of Catholics vis-à-vis capital punishment.  It is Shea, and not Joe and I, who is out of step with the Church.  Shea has every right to oppose capital punishment and to urge his fellow Catholics to do likewise.  But he has no right to accuse those who disagree with him of being “dissenters,” for the Church herself allows Catholics freely to debate and disagree about this particular issue.  Joe and I demonstrate this conclusively in our forthcoming book.  Among the evidence for this claim – by no means the only evidence, but certainly decisive pieces of evidence – are some clarifications issued just over a decade ago by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Archbishop William Levada.

I have cited these texts several times now in my exchanges with Shea.  He has repeatedly ignored them.  A reader of Shea’s who has been engaging him at his Facebook page has asked Shea to respond to the Ratzinger and Levada texts.  While Shea has responded to this reader’s other queries, he is curiously silent about this one.  The reason is obvious.  Shea does not answer because he cannot.  Let’s take a look at these texts and see what Shea is so afraid of.

In 2004, Cardinal Ratzinger, writing in his capacity as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, produced a memorandum titled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles.”  The memo was written in an election year during which there was much discussion about whether Catholic politicians who support abortion ought to be denied Holy Communion, whether Catholics who support capital punishment or the Iraq war were also to be counted as dissenters from Church teaching, etc.  Ratzinger’s aim was to clarify precisely what the Church requires of Catholics vis-à-vis these “hot button” issues.  As the Church’s chief doctrinal officer – who had the full confidence of Pope John Paul II and was later to become pope himself – Ratzinger was in the ideal position to know and had authority to pronounce on the matter.  Here is what he said:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.  For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.  While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia…

Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

End quote.  Now, Ratzinger makes several points in this passage, and they are all devastating to Shea’s position.  First, and contrary to Shea’s charge of inconsistency and bad faith, Ratzinger says that capital punishment is not to be lumped in with abortion and euthanasia.  How great is the difference?  This great: You can be barred from Holy Communion for supporting abortion and euthanasia, but not for supporting capital punishment.  Indeed, a Catholic could even be “at odds with” the pope on the subject of capital punishment – pretty strong language – and still be worthy to receive Holy Communion, whereas dissent from papal teaching on abortion and euthanasia is disqualifying and absolutely impermissible. 

Now, Ratzinger could not have said this if it were mortally sinful to disagree with papal opposition to capital punishment.  And he could not have said that disagreement is “legitimate” if it were even venially sinful to disagree, since even venial sin cannot be “legitimate.”  The only possible conclusion that can be drawn from this is that Catholics owe the pope’s opposition to capital punishment only respectful consideration, not assent.  It could not be clearer that there is no inconsistency whatsoever in the thinking of Catholics who oppose abortion and euthanasia but not capital punishment, and that Catholics have the right to support the latter.

Also in 2004, Archbishop Levada – who would later succeed Ratzinger as head of the CDF – issued a document titled “Theological Reflections on Catholics in Political Life and the Reception of Holy Communion.”  It had the same aim as Cardinal Ratzinger’s memo, and (as you will see if you click on the link) it can be found at the website of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, in the section of the website devoted to setting out what the Church requires of Catholics vis-à-vis political matters.  Here is what the archbishop wrote, in language that partially parallels Ratzinger’s:

Catholic social teaching covers a broad range of important issues.  But among these the teaching on abortion holds a unique place.  Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia.  For example, if a Catholic were to disagree with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not with regard to abortion and euthanasia…

A Catholic, to be in full communion with the faith of the Church, must accept this teaching about the evil of abortion and euthanasia…

[T]he fear that saying nothing in the face of a long-term public refusal to adhere to the teachings of Christ proclaimed by his Church would convince a bishop that, in order to avoid scandal - positions of Catholic politicians that might lead members of his flock into similar patterns of sinful behavior - he must publicly reprove the person who persists in such behavior by imposing a penalty such as the prohibition to receive Holy Communion. Canon 915 says that those "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion”…

In the case of persons who do not accept some teaching of the faith that has been definitively (infallibly) taught… their rejection of such a truth (e.g. the evil of abortion) would affect and diminish their full communion with the faith and life of the Church.

End quote.  Note that Levada repeats Ratzinger’s point that Catholics can “disagree” with the pope on the subject of capital punishment, that there can be a “legitimate diversity of opinion” on this matter but not on abortion and euthanasia, and that disagreement on the latter but not the former can lead to being barred from Holy Communion.  He also adds the point that agreement with papal teaching on the subjects of abortion and euthanasia (unlike agreement on the subject of capital punishment) is a condition for being in “full communion” with the Church.  It is clear, then, that disagreement on the subject of capital punishment does not constitute a refusal of submission to binding teaching.

So, we have official acknowledgement both from the Vatican and from the USCCB that “there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about… applying the death penalty.”  Hence Joe and I are simply exercising the liberty with respect to this subject which the Church herself has acknowledged Catholics have. 

Again, I have now cited these texts several times in my exchanges with Shea.  He cannot be ignorant of their existence.  So when Shea labels Joe and I “dissenters” from binding Catholic teaching, he is either lying or is so psychologically unbalanced that he is incapable of processing evidence that refutes his assertions.  He is, in any event, guilty of slander, of acting contrary to justice and charity, and – as a perusal of his Facebook discussion thread shows – of stirring up hatred and division among Catholics.