Death and Development

Donald P. Goodman III

The death penalty is the subject of much legitimate debate, so I want to lead my admittedly provocative statement at the end of this paragraph with some caveats. Many people support the death penalty, and they do so with both good and bad reasons. Many people oppose the death penalty, and they also do with both good and bad reasons. Many of these people, on both sides of the question, are good and honest people. However, it must be said: the argument that the catechism's new statements on the death penalty represent a development of doctrine is stupid.

Logic demands this conclusion. The whole idea of development of doctrine is that doctrines don't change; they might develop as we come to a deeper understanding of them, but they do not simply change. We believe in a religion revealed by Christ and handed down to the apostles; there is not any new revelation to be had. What is once true, what was handed to the apostles by Christ, is always true; we don't realize that it was wrong and believe something else. This means that while we might say that we have further specified a doctrine, we can never believe the contrary.

So let's look at the teaching of the Church on this matter, which has always been that the death penalty is, at least sometimes, acceptable. There are a huge number of examples of this teaching, such that the breadth of the doctrine has been much more ably displayed elsewhere; let's pick just one example: the Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that “[t]the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives”. We will distill this statement to the following:

1. Some death sentences are moral.

Next, let's look at Pope Francis's teaching on the death penalty, as exemplified in his revisions to John Paul II's catechism (which, incidentally, was consistent with Trent's teaching). He changed the catechism to say that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”. Because attacking the inviolability and dignty of the person is always immoral, this is clearly a statement of the death penalty's absolute immorality. We will distill it to the following:

2. No death sentences are moral.

In logical terms, statement 1 (“some death sentences are moral”) is a particular affirmative; that is, it states that the predicate (“moral”) applies to at least a part of the subject (“death sentences”). It is a statement that, while some death sentences may be immoral, some of them are moral. Statement 2 (“no death sentences are moral”), however, is a universal negative; that becomes clearer if we rephrase it as “all death sentences are not moral”. That is, it is a denial that the predicate (“moral”) applies to any of the subject (“death sentences”); it absolutely excludes the predicate from the subject.

In other words, statement 1 and statement 2 differ in both quantity (statement 1 is particular, because it applies to only some of the subject, while statement 2 is universal, because it applies to all of the subject) and form (statement 1 is affirmative, because it affirms something of the subject, while statement 2 is negative, because it denies something of the subject). In logical terms (again), these are contradictories.

What does it mean to be contradictory? It means that the two statements are totally opposed to one another, and they admit of no intermediate judgment. Consider two other statements:

3. All men are rational.
4. All men are not rational.

These are contraries; they are both universal, but they still differ in form (one is affirmative, one is negative). While these are opposed to one another (they cannot both be true), they do admit of an intermediate judgment (namely, that some men are rational).

That is not true of contradictories. Contradictories divide the world between them: there is no third. Either one is true, or the other is true; they cannot both be true, and there is no third option that might be true. One must be true, and that means that the other must be false.

So turning toward our two contradictories, statement 1 (“some death sentences are moral”) and statement 2 (“no death sentences are moral”): which one is true? If the Church's teaching until 2018 is to be believed, then statement 1 is true. If Pope Francis's change is to be believed, then statement 2 is true. Both of them cannot possibly be true.

So why do I say that the argument that this is a development of doctrine is stupid? Precisely because these two doctrines are contradictories. When a doctrine develops, we come to a deeper understanding of it; we learn more about it, and we are able to say more things about it. In logical terms, we are able to predicate more about a subject. For example:

5. Christ is present in the Eucharist.
6. The accidents of Christ are not present in the Eucharist, but His substance is.

The progression from statement 5 to statement 6 is a development; the two statements are clearly in conformity with one another, but the statement 6 is much more specific than statement 5. The two are not contradictories; they can both be true.

However, if Pope Francis's death penalty teaching is true, then the Church simply erred for nearly two thousand years; if the Church hasn't erred for nearly two thousand years, then Pope Francis's death penalty teaching is not true. It is really, truly that simple.

When a doctrine goes from one contradictory to another, it hasn't developed; it has changed; and if this, a movement from one statement to its contradictory, is a development of doctrine, then any change is a development of doctrine. We might see the following:

7. All homosexual acts are not moral.
8. Some homosexual acts are moral.

Contradictories. The first has always been the teaching of the Church; the second is what many people would like to see the Church teach. These are no more contradictory than what Pope Francis has already overcome with his catechism change.

9. All Communion in an objective state of mortal sin is sacriligious.
↊. Some Communion in an objective state of mortal sin is not sacriligious.

Contradictories, again, and no more contradictory than what Pope Francis has already overcome with his catechism change. Though, again, he managed to overcome this in Amoris Lætitiæ well before his catechism change, so perhaps I'm proving my own point here.

The bottom line is that, as noted above, the Catholic Faith is founded on the principle that Christ gave the faith to the apostles, who pass it down to us whole and entire; we are not getting new revelations. What He taught them is what He teaches us; what He taught them is true. If moving from one contradictory to another like this is a development of doctrine, then development of doctrine leads to us believing not only things not believed by the apostles at all, but things which are fundamentally and logically antithetical to what they believed. If “development” includes changing from a statement to its contradictory, then the whole Catholic religion is a sham.

As I said when I started, there are legitimate reasons to oppose the death penalty, even though I think most of them are weak arguments, or simply wrong. I respect the people who make them. But to say that moving from one statement to its contradictory is a “development” isn't just wrong; it's stupid. Call it what it is: a change. And follow that to its logical conclusions.

Praise be to Christ the King!