Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Aug. 3, 2018 - The Matt Walsh Show

29:45

Ep. 76 - Is The Pope Right About The Death Penalty?

Pope Francis is attempting to overturn 2,000 years of Church teaching on the death penalty. Christianity has always taught, and Scripture says, and men like Aquinas and Augustine have affirmed, that the death penalty is morally permissible. The Pope disagrees. Is he wrong? We'll talk about that on the show today. (But yes, he's wrong). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So you probably heard that Pope Francis reversed Catholic Church teaching on the death penalty.
	And now normally when you hear things like this, you hear that the Pope reversed church teaching on this or that subject.
	Usually it's untrue.
	Usually the media is sensationalizing some personal opinion that Pope Francis expressed On a plane when he was talking to journalists or something like that.
	But in this case, this time it is true, or it's true anyway, that the Pope is trying to officially reverse a teaching of the church that has been in place for 2,000 years.
	And that is very bad and wrong.
	And I would even say catastrophically wrong.
	I want to explain why.
	There are two aspects to this conversation.
	One is about what Francis is trying to do and whether he can do it.
	The other aspect is just the death penalty itself and how Christians are really supposed to view the issue.
	So I want to tackle both of these things.
	I want to spend more time on the second point, but let's start with the first.
	So on the first point, we should recall that the church has taught for 2,000 years— It is always taught, and men like Aquinas and Augustine have affirmed this, it's always been taught that the death penalty is, in principle, permissible.
	In principle, the state has the authority from God to put criminals to death.
	That is what has always been taught.
	Even in modern times, when popes like Pope John Paul II have had personal objections to the death penalty, still, this essential teaching has not changed.
	That it is, in principle, permissible.
	Now that leaves a lot of room for discussion about when and in what context and for what reason the death penalty can be used.
	So there's a lot of discussion there.
	And as modern technology has developed and as our prison systems have become more advanced and more efficient and more able to safely segregate prisoners from society, it has been understood By many Christians and some recent popes that the death penalty is no longer necessary in most cases in advanced countries like our own.
	But still, in principle, it has always been considered a morally acceptable act because governments have that authority.
	That is an authority that governments have.
	And by the way, to say that the death penalty isn't necessary because a country is technologically advanced and they have advanced prison systems, Well, to make that argument assumes that the sole function of capital punishment is simply to remove dangerous people from society in order to protect the safety of individuals in society.
	Now, that is one view of capital punishment, but I should add it is mostly a modern view And it is not really in keeping with the historical Christian understanding of capital punishment, which has said for many centuries that capital punishment is a punishment.
	We call it a punishment for a reason because it also has value as a punitive measure and as an act of justice.
	It is a means for society to not only segregate violent criminals, but to speak out and to say that certain acts are simply intolerable and that's it.
	That's something that can be discussed.
	You know, we want to talk about the reasons for capital punishment.
	What is the function of capital punishment?
	These are all areas where there can be disagreement and discussion and debate.
	But the relevant point is that the church has never, ever, ever, ever said That capital punishment is absolutely wrong.
	It is Pope Francis who is now, after 2,000 years, trying to instate that idea.
	This is not a development of doctrine.
	It's not what this is. This is a change.
	He is changing it.
	And he's not even doing it, and we'll talk about this in a minute, he's not even doing it based on development of doctrine.
	He's basing it on the development of society.
	And the change of teaching based on how society has developed is, again, catastrophically wrong.
	Now, on a personal level, not that it matters how I feel personally, but the irony here is, as I am issuing, I guess, this defense of capital punishment, on a personal level, I've waffled back and forth on the issue quite a bit.
	I've rarely been firmly on one side or the other.
	But my personal feeling most recently has been, and for the last few years, that I oppose the death penalty in America.
	But I don't believe, and I've never believed, that the death penalty is inherently immoral in all cases across the world.
	I've never believed that. So, but that's just been my own, and that's just been my personal view.
	My personal view, though, has no bearing on the moral facts of the matter.
	And it has no bearing on what Christian teaching has traditionally been.
	It has no bearing on what the Bible says.
	And I recognize that my personal feelings do not supersede any of those things.
	I've also admitted in the past that my own feeling of, you know, we shouldn't have the death penalty in America, it is, I admit, it is largely an emotional thing.
	It's an emotional kind of feeling in the gut of, I don't like the idea of taking a guy out of a prison cell and trotting him into a place, strapping him to a gurney and injecting poison into his veins.
	That is, I just, I don't feel right about that.
	But I recognize, you know, facts don't care about your feelings, right?
	So I recognize that.
	I still have the feelings, but I don't pretend that my feelings supersede anything.
	But I have them. And it is still, as I said, not inherently immoral.
	But the Catechism now basically says that the death penalty is inherently immoral, although it does not use the phrase inherently immoral.
	Here's what the new passage in the Catechism says, now that Pope Francis has made his unilateral changes to it.
	It says, recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority following a fair trial was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable albeit extreme means of safeguarding the common good.
	Today, however, there is, listen to this, an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.
	In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state.
	Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed which ensure the due protection of citizens but at the same time do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
	Consequently, the church teaches, in light of the gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
	So Francis has taken his own personal view, and he has now put it forth as the position of the church.
	This is his own personal view.
	This is his opinion.
	This is not what the church teaches.
	The church has not taught that, has never taught that.
	This is his opinion that he has put into the catechism and said, the church teaches.
	No, that's what he teaches.
	That's his opinion.
	It has not been shared by the church.
	It has not been shared by most of the authoritative voices in Christianity for 2,000 years, and I would argue it is not at all shared by Scripture.
	And then he justifies the change by quoting himself.
	That part at the end where it says, in light of the gospel, the death penalty is inadmissible because it's an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.
	That's in quotes.
	And if you trace that quote back to its origin, it's Pope Francis.
	He's quoting himself to justify a change to church teaching.
	And he says now that the death penalty is inadmissible on a worldwide scale, which to me is the exact same thing as calling it inherently immoral.
	I see... And people who are defending this are trying to draw some distinction and say, well, just because it's inadmissible doesn't mean that it's immoral.
	Give me a break. Now, if you tell me that it's inadmissible in certain circumstances, then yes, it doesn't mean that it's immoral.
	But that's already what the church taught.
	The church already taught that in many circumstances in the modern world, it's inadmissible, but that doesn't mean that it's inadmissible across the board.
	No, Pope Francis is not saying that.
	He's saying it's inadmissible across the board for everyone.
	Worldwide. So if something is inadmissible in every case for everyone across the world, that means it's inherently immoral.
	Because if it's not inherently immoral, then it cannot possibly be inadmissible for everyone in every case across the world.
	So this is a distinction without a difference.
	And again, I must remind you that this idea that the death penalty is inadmissible across the world has never been taught by the church.
	Never been taught. And it finds little support through the centuries.
	For 2,000 years, the church said it was admissible, and now Francis says that it isn't.
	And what is his reason for this change?
	Well, he says that the modern prison system negates the need for it.
	That's false, of course, because a great many countries do not have modern prison systems.
	And yet he still calls for the abolition of the death penalty even in those countries.
	The prison system in North America and Western Europe, they are not representative of the prison systems in Africa or most of Asia or in South Africa or I should say in South America.
	They do not represent what the prison system looks like in all of those countries.
	They certainly do not represent the prison system in third world countries that barely have governments.
	And so their prison systems are just basically a cage infested with fleas and lice and human sewage where you've got 20 people crammed in and then you throw another person in and you give them buckets of gruel or whatever to live on.
	And guess what?
	The prison systems that are like that, which are not uncommon in the world, they haven't changed for centuries.
	The prison system in a third world country is essentially the same now as it was 500 years ago.
	So it is just false to claim that technological advancements have made the death penalty obsolete.
	Because you can only argue that in one portion of the world.
	It doesn't apply to the rest, yet you have used that argument and applied it to the entire world.
	But more to the point, Francis says incredibly that the change is made because we moderns apparently have a greater awareness of human dignity.
	We have a new understanding which has emerged.
	He is accusing the historical church of having an insufficient awareness of human dignity.
	This is an incredible charge, and it's completely false, and it's dangerous, and it's in need of correction.
	That's the real problem here.
	No matter how you feel about the death penalty, Francis has now called into question his own church's ability to make any moral declarations on any subject.
	He is saying, think about that phrase, a new understanding has emerged from Well, first of all, I simply don't agree that the modern world has a greater understanding or awareness on moral issues or on the subject of human dignity.
	I do not see that when I look around the world.
	But in terms of new understandings emerging, where are these understandings emerging from?
	Where? Are they popping out of the ground?
	Are they falling from the sky? Are they growing on trees?
	Where is the understanding tree where they emerge from?
	You say, oh, well, here's a new understanding.
	Here's an understanding that suddenly we all have that nobody else had before.
	But think about this justification.
	If the church lacked awareness and understanding on this essential matter of life and death, then the question that Francis is begging us to ask is, on what other subjects did it lack understanding and awareness?
	What other new understandings might emerge?
	Is Francis next going to tell us that modern awareness and understanding leads us to the conclusion that the homosexual act isn't necessarily disordered?
	He has just given himself the groundwork to do exactly that.
	That's what he's done.
	So, how should we consider the death penalty question?
	Well, let's remember, and I'm not an expert.
	I don't claim to be an expert.
	In fact, I admit that I'm a waffling You know, emotional...
	I waffle and I can be emotion-driven on this subject.
	I fully admit that.
	Which is why I do not refer...
	I'm not going to quote myself. Unlike Pope Francis, I will not quote myself as a way to try to sort through this.
	Instead, all I'm saying is, let's all look at the information that is available to us.
	That's all. Don't take my word for it.
	Let's look at the available information.
	We know, we can see, that God prescribes the death penalty...
	Throughout the Old Testament, most notably in Exodus, where he says, anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.
	In Genesis, he says, whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.
	Now, this view is pretty clearly affirmed, I think, in the New Testament when St.
	Paul says, for one in authority is God's servant for your good.
	But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason.
	They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
	How do we imagine, what do we imagine bear the sword means in this context?
	And remember, St.
	Paul is saying this at a time when governments would quite literally use the sword to punish wrongdoers.
	And St. Paul is, I think, explicitly endorsing that.
	How else could you possibly interpret it?
	He is saying that the government is an agent of wrath to punish wrongdoers with the sword.
	I think you really have to twist yourself into a pretzel to claim that that doesn't apply to capital punishment.
	Not only does it apply to capital punishment, but it seems clear to me that he is talking about capital punishment.
	I mean, how else does it need to be phrased?
	Does he need to say, by the way, I am speaking about capital punishment?
	No. Paul is saying the government has the authority from God to use the sword as a means of punishment, not even just as a means of segregating, not as a means of societal self-defense, but as a means of punishment to enact God's wrath against wrongdoing.
	Now, Jesus had a pretty good chance to repudiate this whole notion when he was crucified and he was hanging next to two criminals who were also condemned to death.
	And one of the criminals says, I deserve this.
	My punishment is just.
	Now Jesus could have said, no, you don't deserve it.
	This kind of punishment is inadmissible.
	But he doesn't say that.
	In fact, it is the criminal's very—it is his penitent acceptance of his punishment, coupled with his recognition of Christ, that leads Christ to say to him, this day you will be with me in paradise, which I think interferes with two things.
	It interferes with The argument that the death penalty is inherently immoral, it also interferes with the argument that the death penalty could prevent someone from repenting of their sins.
	Because in this case, in this very powerful story in the Gospels, it is this criminal's punishment itself which has brought him to a recognition of the severity of his crimes.
	And it is that recognition, that penance, that repentance, which then leads him on to Christ and to eternal life.
	So, we have that.
	We have St. Paul.
	We have the Word of God in the Old Testament.
	And then we also have the general understanding and awareness of most authoritative voices in Christianity for at least the first 19 centuries of Christianity.
	We have all of that, all of that together, which weighs very heavily on the side of the death penalty being admissible.
	I would say, in fact, that it rules out the possibility that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral.
	And if the possibility of the death penalty being intrinsically immoral is ruled out, then the possibility of making the death penalty inadmissible on a worldwide scale is also ruled out.
	It is unavoidably plain.
	The death penalty in principle is admissible, and to say that it is not, and to say so on the basis of human dignity, is to accuse God the Father, God the Son, Saint Paul, of having an insufficient understanding of human dignity.
	Again, this doesn't mean that we have to support the death penalty in any particular situation, but I think it does preclude us as Christians from absolutely denying the legitimacy of capital punishment as a form of punishment.
	And the fact that nearly every great Christian theologian I can think of across the whole of Christendom throughout history, the fact that all of them and most of the leaders of the faith historically, the fact that they have all, and Aquinas and Augustine and all of them, the fact that they have all endorsed the moral legitimacy of the death penalty is really like icing on the cake at that point.
	I mean, think about it.
	Think about this here. If we can just come outside of our modern understanding for a minute, if we can release ourselves from this modern sentimentality, I think we will see that when you consider all of the issues that Christians have fought about over the years, think of all the issues that have torn us apart.
	Yet even with all of that, for most of the past 2,000 years, there was very little controversy over the death penalty.
	There was near unanimous agreement that it was acceptable.
	And our modern sentimentality, of which I am, on this issue, I admit, plagued, still, it does not change any of that.
	It seems that the only way for a Christian to oppose the death penalty in principle, in every case, is to say that God's word on the subject has expired or it no longer holds.
	But how can we say that?
	Now, Jesus in the New Testament Does, on several occasions, go through a whole list of formulas where he says, you know, it has been said, or you were told X, but I say unto you Y. Right?
	Jesus has the authority to do that.
	You do not. I do not.
	The Pope does not.
	The Pope does not have the authority to override God.
	Does not have the authority to do it.
	Even in the Catholic understanding, the Pope can defend, articulate, explain matters of faith and morals.
	He cannot invent teachings.
	That he cannot do.
	Jesus can say, you were told this, but this is what I tell you, and this holds now.
	Jesus can do that.
	One other point to consider here about the human dignity argument.
	First, traditionally, the death penalty has been supported on the basis of human dignity.
	That's the basis that God provides in Exodus, or in Genesis, when he says, it is because human beings were made in my image that if you take the life of another human being, your life must be taken.
	So it has traditionally been understood that the death penalty is a way of enforcing and kind of underlining the human dignity by emphasizing just how terrible and intolerable it is for you to take somebody's life when they are made in the image of God.
	But second of all, I am not at all convinced that life in prison is more humane or more respecting of dignity than is capital punishment.
	Now, I agree that when it comes to capital punishment and the issue of human dignity, we have two things to take into consideration.
	We have the human dignity of the victim, which must be taken into consideration.
	We also have the human dignity of the criminal, of the guilty.
	And they still have human dignity.
	Human dignity is not something that can be taken away from you.
	You can't lose it. You always have it.
	It's part of your nature. So we have to take that into consideration.
	We have to respect it. But I'm just not convinced that in every case, the best way to respect and uphold a person's human dignity is to keep them locked in a cage for 70 years.
	I'm not convinced of that.
	I'm especially not convinced of it in the case of a third world country.
	Because there, when you've got a murderer, you have three choices.
	You can do nothing with them and let them go into society.
	I think we all agree that that's wrong.
	You can execute them, okay?
	Or you can lock them in a cage strewn with sewage and infested with lice where they're going to be, you know, having very little to eat and they're going to be living like a dog for the rest of their lives.
	That's your other option. There's only three options.
	And in a third world country, those are your only options.
	I don't believe that that third option is more in keeping with human dignity than the second of executing them.
	I just don't believe it. And even in this country, when you have someone who has committed the most heinous of crimes, like take someone who was raped and killed a child, well, with someone like that, You can't put them in general population because then in that case you might as well execute them because the prison population will do it for you.
	He's gonna get beat to death in the shower or stabbed to death in the cafeteria or something.
	So your only other option is to keep them in solitary confinement for their whole lives.
	Where they're going to be locked in a small, perhaps windowless room for 23 hours a day.
	They'll get a few minutes of sunlight a week, and they're going to live like that.
	If you have someone who rapes and kills a child at the age of 20 and lives, say, to 85, that's 65 years in those conditions.
	I am not convinced that that is more in keeping with and more respecting of his human dignity.
	And I'm also definitely not convinced that that is more likely to bring him to repentance and thus to salvation.
	Because when you throw somebody in a room like that and you just let them whittle away forever, I don't know if that's going to have the same effect as telling them, listen, you're going to be executed on this day, so get yourself right with the Lord.
	Which one is more likely to bring someone to repentance?
	If they're going to come to repentance at all, which one is more likely to spark that within them?
	Last thing very quickly, I have heard a few verses in the New Testament trotted out to try to defend the abolition of the death penalty, and generally people will cite three verses.
	They'll say, he who is without sin, cast the first stone, turn the other cheek, and live by the sword, die by the sword.
	It is clear to me that these teachings cannot and do not apply literally and universally to the government.
	Because if they do, that would mean that all acts of war and all acts of punitive justice are also ruled out.
	Because it would, by that logic, remove the government's right to use physical force at all to any end, in any context.
	If we're supposed to, I mean, when the Allies stormed the beaches, they weren't turning the other cheek.
	They were, let's say, casting a stone, even though they themselves had sinned.
	And when the government locks a murderer in prison, when a judge passes that sentence, he's not turning the other cheek, and he is casting a stone, metaphorically.
	Putting someone in prison is an act of violence.
	It is an act of physical force, which the other party does not consent to.
	That is like the definition of violence.
	And not only that, but more explicit forms of violence are necessary in order to maintain the prison and defend it.
	In that, if somebody tries to escape, they're going to be met with physical force.
	So if you're telling me that physical...
	If we're saying that capital punishment is ruled out because of what Jesus has told us about turning the other cheek and physical force, and you're applying that to the death penalty and applying it to the government, then I do not see how you can apply it in that context, but then not apply it across the board, and thus send society into total anarchy.
	But this is not the traditional Christian teaching, nor is it what you find in Scripture.
	It has always been understood, and this is what St.
	Paul says very explicitly, that governments have authority which individuals do not.
	Governments have authority from God to do things that you and I cannot do.
	So the government can take taxes from you.
	You can't go up to someone and take a tax.
	You can't just go up to someone and take money out of the wealth.
	The government can do that. You can't lock somebody in a cage.
	The government can do that.
	A lot of things the government can do that you as an individual cannot do.
	And it has been understood for 2,000 years that execution is one of those things.
	Now, this authority that the government has, it's not absolute.
	It can be lost.
	It doesn't give them carte blanche to do whatever they want.
	Obviously, the Nazi government had completely lost its divine authority because it was serving the devil and it had completely rejected the common good and was working against it and was working solely for tyranny and evil.
	And so it had to be overthrown and crushed violently.
	And so that can happen.
	But in principle, the governments do have this authority.
	And they can exercise it.
	And so what Jesus is saying here, he who is without sin cast the first stone, turn the other cheek, live by the sword, die by the sword.
	He is speaking to individuals.
	He is not telling governments how to operate.
	I don't see any other way to interpret that without essentially arguing against the government itself as an institution.
	All right. So that is a defense of capital punishment from someone who is lukewarm on capital punishment.
	There you go. Thanks for watching everybody.

▲